You ask a lot! But I salute the optimist every time!
Perhaps if we were all issued the same pom-poms Leftists get, we'd want to shake them whenever an empty suit asked for his adoration dosage... or not.
Perhaps if we were all issued the same pom-poms Leftists get, we'd want to shake them whenever an empty suit asked for his adoration dosage... or not.
10
The injunction does not affect President Obama policy of prosecutorial discretion. He can still focus DHS effort on deporting illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. Judge Hanan wrote, "For the sake of clarity, this temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the DAPA program that awards legal presence and additional benefits to the four million or more individuals potentially covered by the DAPA Memorandum and to the three expansions/additions to the DACA program also contained in the same DAPA Memorandum. It does not enjoin or impair the [DHD] Secretary's ability to marshal his assets or deploy the resources of the DHS. It does not enjoin the Secretary's ability to set priorities for the DHS.”
8
Actually the injunction does affect Obama's unlawful amnesty program.
One, it blocks implementation of de-facto citizenship that would cost the 26 states suing him a mint of money to carry out. Two, it takes away the sanctuary city incentives to lure more illegals to the US. Three it blocks the DAPA/DACA provisions that would grant backdoor citizenship to an additional 10 million illegals who are "in the shadows." Finally, it delays full implementation of Obama's amnesty plan long enough to survive the Obama presidency, and allow the next POTUS to get rid of all DACA provisions that are in effect, restoring immigration law to its intended form.
One, it blocks implementation of de-facto citizenship that would cost the 26 states suing him a mint of money to carry out. Two, it takes away the sanctuary city incentives to lure more illegals to the US. Three it blocks the DAPA/DACA provisions that would grant backdoor citizenship to an additional 10 million illegals who are "in the shadows." Finally, it delays full implementation of Obama's amnesty plan long enough to survive the Obama presidency, and allow the next POTUS to get rid of all DACA provisions that are in effect, restoring immigration law to its intended form.
11
The source of the problem is obvious - the inability of the GOP to address this problem and solve it with bi-partisan Congressional action to solve what appears to be unsolvable at the current rate of progress by the deadheads in the GOP majority. They have no solution, none whatsoever and yet they attack instead of working with all parties to insure an appropriate legislative solution - and this is their job! Why they fail in this endeavor is obvious - they re split as a party and are beholden to their donors and their fanatical and highly supportive base. This impasse makes no sense. It is purely political in nature and seeking to fund their re-election campaign. The GOP is a party of NOTHING, but STATUS QUO. How's that for a governmental policy or leadership?
7
In other words, two wrongs make a right...
5
Three lefts make a right.
10
The President has been getting no cooperation from Congress on this National crisis. Perhaps it is time for him to exercise his constitutional powers to call the Congress into session, perpetually, until a bipartisan immigration policy is achieved.
12
"Undocumented immigrants" is a misleading term.
"Undocumented." Illegal aliens are being issued documents in some states, and by the Mexican consulate.
"Immigrants." The legal term is aliens. The term "immigrant" connotes lawful immigration administered by a country.
"Undocumented." Illegal aliens are being issued documents in some states, and by the Mexican consulate.
"Immigrants." The legal term is aliens. The term "immigrant" connotes lawful immigration administered by a country.
23
Rege against judicial activism is always in the context of whose ox is being gored.
9
GOP never offers solutions, only blocks Obama's. They're like dead weight on our country.
10
Republicans sure waste a lot of tax payer money.
10
We can't have a whole class of people in the US who are immune from the laws of the United States. Tax evasion, social security fraud and identity theft are just some of the crimes illegal aliens commit. Crimes citizens are punished for. Don't like the current immigration laws? Either work through the Congress to change the laws as the Constitution requires or leave and go to another country more to your liking.Or you can try to get the American people to elect a new Congress that will change the immigration laws. What you can not do and this includes the President is to go around the Constitution because you find our current laws inconvenient.
23
Keep blocking it. Send them home and let them try to come here the legal way. With millions of Americans out of work or in poverty, we don't need countless illegals getting welfare and food stamps, and committing crimes.
25
Everyone following this issue might be interested to see a factor operating in the background: the cost of illegal immigrants to Medicaid, you know that program that is wreaking havoc with state budgets all over the country.
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/
A little noted feature of Obamacare throttled back on Medicaid being used for illegal immigrants, who are ineligible for Obamacare. So, hospitals are back to providing free care to illegal immigrants. They don't like it. They are lobbying their states to help legalize illegal immigrants, so they can get Obamacare or Medicaid, so they can get paid.
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/
A little noted feature of Obamacare throttled back on Medicaid being used for illegal immigrants, who are ineligible for Obamacare. So, hospitals are back to providing free care to illegal immigrants. They don't like it. They are lobbying their states to help legalize illegal immigrants, so they can get Obamacare or Medicaid, so they can get paid.
14
Not surprisingly, the WSJ editorial board did a much better job at both explaining Judge Hanen's 125-page point by point ruling against Obama's Executive Order, as well as an explanation of Obama's original EO. There's a reason most Americans believe the Times puts together its paper with only one hand - the left.
18
The GOP continues to be baffled by poor general election results-I am baffled they get any votes outside the 1%.
9
The question nobody on the left wants to answer:
While stealing Congressional authority under the Constitution to grant citizenship to nearly 11 million undocumented illegals in and streaming across the US/Mexico border, what do you say to those living outside the United States, waiting patiently for years on end to legally come to the USA and become citizens?
While stealing Congressional authority under the Constitution to grant citizenship to nearly 11 million undocumented illegals in and streaming across the US/Mexico border, what do you say to those living outside the United States, waiting patiently for years on end to legally come to the USA and become citizens?
19
One question, slightly off-topic. But is there any chance of any branch of government doing something to help the millions of people who have been waiting for decades in the immigration line? Those who chose to attempt to immigrate through legal channels?
I ask because I wonder 1) why there is no urgency in any branch of government to resolve a 20+ year waiting list, and 2) how these new proposed measure will affect those already waiting years for a decision, priority date, or a day in court. I think there are limited immigration officials and judges, who will prioritize the cases they are told to prioritize. If these proposed new measure are enacted, will those who have been standing in line be the first priority or the last priority?
I've read about the frustration of those who were expecting to file paperwork this week for this program. I would ask that when empathizing with that frustration you recall the people who've already filed, but have been told to wait 20+ years to come, and treat them fairly.
I ask because I wonder 1) why there is no urgency in any branch of government to resolve a 20+ year waiting list, and 2) how these new proposed measure will affect those already waiting years for a decision, priority date, or a day in court. I think there are limited immigration officials and judges, who will prioritize the cases they are told to prioritize. If these proposed new measure are enacted, will those who have been standing in line be the first priority or the last priority?
I've read about the frustration of those who were expecting to file paperwork this week for this program. I would ask that when empathizing with that frustration you recall the people who've already filed, but have been told to wait 20+ years to come, and treat them fairly.
11
If the illegals can get their benefits like this, what about those who are following the rules waiting for their applications and petitions for years, whose families are also separated, who might have paid millions of dollars for their investors' visa, or might have spent years going to school paying ten times as much for tuition and going through countless trouble to find an employer to sponsor for their green card, who might have left their spouse or children at their home country for years, not be able to see their parents for a decade, going through countless interviews or hearings... what about them? Aren't they already in line? First come, first serve? The president or the lawmaker needs someone who knows the immigration process to really understand the whole picture, the specifics... The United States is a country of immigrants, who follow the rules. However, we don't want to send the message that it is okay to stop following the rules. Then, this country will become a country of illegal immigrants.
10
You raise good questions that will go unanswered until people with spines are in the congessional majority. Had the Republicans chosen to work on legislation that acknowledges your observations, we might have a useful compromise and a lawful outcome. Having done nothing, there are no grounds for opposing a leader who has done something to repair the damage of inaction.
6
I'd be fascinated to know if the shouters a) know the diff between an Executive Order and a law, b) know exactly which provision(s) of the Constitution the President violated in their opinion, c) know anything at all about the history of the debate over the Executive Branch's powers, d) know exactly how they plan to seal the border and deport ten million people.
Oh, and for extra credit--please explain the plan for handling a) the massive disruption to our economy, and b) the destabilizing effects on Latin America.
try not shouting: just explain.
Oh, and for extra credit--please explain the plan for handling a) the massive disruption to our economy, and b) the destabilizing effects on Latin America.
try not shouting: just explain.
7
As Judge Hanen pointed out in a memorandum attached his injunction, the case does not involve executive orders or directives signed by President Obama. It involves the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and Lawful Permanent Resident Directive signed by the Homeland Security director. (President Obama hasn't signed any executive orders related to illegal immigrants since he established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012.) The issue is whether an agency head can grant immunity and legal presence status to millions of illegal immigrants without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.
6
a) In this case there is no real difference. Obama purposely chose to "call" an Executive Action an Executive Order to avoid impeachment (Congress impeached Andrew Johnson over an Executive Order). Obama's tactic to avoid impeachment over unlawful executive orders has been to issue memoranda ordering agencies under executive control to do legislative functions the Constitution forbids him to do--like a mobster ordering a hit. The mob boss doesn't pull the trigger, but the act still happens.
b) Obama is trampling Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which gives Congress plenary (or full) power to legislate.
c) the history of the debate over executive power and overreach is really long, but interesting, because Candidate Obama chastised and ridiculed the Bush WH for executive overreach. Obama specifically called Bush out for executive overreach and promised never to use that tactic as POTUS.
d) Sealing the border and deporting 10 million people? If we allocate $1 to deport every illegal, that's already 10 million dollars. We put a man on the moon for less.
Extra credit: Care to explain the massive disruption in the US economy as baby boomers enter their sixties and seventies and need gov't subsidized services when we are using precious resources to support tens of millions of illegals? I've read the Constitution dozens of times. Can't find anything requiring the USA to stabilize Latin America. They might have to do that themselves.
b) Obama is trampling Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, which gives Congress plenary (or full) power to legislate.
c) the history of the debate over executive power and overreach is really long, but interesting, because Candidate Obama chastised and ridiculed the Bush WH for executive overreach. Obama specifically called Bush out for executive overreach and promised never to use that tactic as POTUS.
d) Sealing the border and deporting 10 million people? If we allocate $1 to deport every illegal, that's already 10 million dollars. We put a man on the moon for less.
Extra credit: Care to explain the massive disruption in the US economy as baby boomers enter their sixties and seventies and need gov't subsidized services when we are using precious resources to support tens of millions of illegals? I've read the Constitution dozens of times. Can't find anything requiring the USA to stabilize Latin America. They might have to do that themselves.
9
How about judges who assault democracy? North Carolina overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to block homosexual marriage that was overturned by unelected judges based on a reading of the US constitution that is at variance with how it has been interpreted for over 220 years! So liberals should not complain when something they like is also overturned by an unelected judge. Instead, we should let the voters always decide what they want, either directly or by electing individuals with clear policies, rather than have unelected, unqualified judges with overactive imaginations decide what we need.
3
It's obvious. Unscrupulous business benefits greatly from an underclass of undocumented migrant guest workers without legal rights. Effective immigration reform would greatly diminish that benefit.
The Obama administration has been systematically enforcing immigration laws at the employer level. That's countercultural, because it goes after the people who benefit from the guest workers as well as the workers themselves. The right wing hates this.
All the yelling about how immigrants are freeloaders is just political theater designed to obscure the real issue: cheap immigrant labor is valuable to some businesses, and reforming immigration raises the cost of that labor by giving those laborers rights.
The Obama administration has been systematically enforcing immigration laws at the employer level. That's countercultural, because it goes after the people who benefit from the guest workers as well as the workers themselves. The right wing hates this.
All the yelling about how immigrants are freeloaders is just political theater designed to obscure the real issue: cheap immigrant labor is valuable to some businesses, and reforming immigration raises the cost of that labor by giving those laborers rights.
26
I dare you to name two companies that Obama's DHS has audited/raided. What employer enforcement action?
And, if you want to claim it's going on, just not being publicized very widely, make that argument, but why? Wouldn't any program be more effective if communicated? It's not happening.
Here's an article from the LA Times last spring that sheds light on how feeble Obama's real immigration enforcement has been and this was BEFORE he got on this program of "protecting" illegal immigrants, as the NYT puts it.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.ht...
"Progressives" should understand that what Obama is doing with his "protection" is shielding illegal immigrants AND giving amnesty, in the process, to the employers for whom they have worked.
And, if you want to claim it's going on, just not being publicized very widely, make that argument, but why? Wouldn't any program be more effective if communicated? It's not happening.
Here's an article from the LA Times last spring that sheds light on how feeble Obama's real immigration enforcement has been and this was BEFORE he got on this program of "protecting" illegal immigrants, as the NYT puts it.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.ht...
"Progressives" should understand that what Obama is doing with his "protection" is shielding illegal immigrants AND giving amnesty, in the process, to the employers for whom they have worked.
10
In a world where all politics is electoral politics and where political perception trumps political fact every time, Obama is playing rope-a-dope with Republican conservatives; and it is working. Only about 10% of the voters decide elections. 45% will vote Democrat and 45% will vote Republican irrespective of the identity of the candidates. The 10% (at best) swing voters, who are likely disenchanted with the system anyway, are in my opinion more likely to be turned off by Republican obstructionism such as Judge Hamen's interposing his personal views into what should be a neutral judicial proceeding, than by possible Democratic over-reaching. At least the latter is an obvious effort to effect positive change when Republican leadership has refused to allow a vote on immigration reform when knowing that such reform would pass in a bi-partisan basis.
2
To the NY Times Editorial Board and supporters of Obama's amnesty program for illegals already in the United States:
What do you say to the immigrant family in the Ukraine, or Sudan or Indonesia living in fear of their lives while awaiting citizenship in the United States legally back in their home countries?
What do you say to the middle aged Italian man who grew up dreaming of coming to the United States legally and is in Italy waiting his turn under the existing immigration laws?
What do you say to the young men living in urban Black communities who are losing that first job at the supermarket, or chance to enroll in college because an undocumented immigrant received those opportunities under DACA and occupies the desk at the university they could have had?
What do you say to the founding fathers and heroes who laid down their lives defending the United States and our laws?
Seriously people.
Humanity? Fairness?
What do you say to the immigrant family in the Ukraine, or Sudan or Indonesia living in fear of their lives while awaiting citizenship in the United States legally back in their home countries?
What do you say to the middle aged Italian man who grew up dreaming of coming to the United States legally and is in Italy waiting his turn under the existing immigration laws?
What do you say to the young men living in urban Black communities who are losing that first job at the supermarket, or chance to enroll in college because an undocumented immigrant received those opportunities under DACA and occupies the desk at the university they could have had?
What do you say to the founding fathers and heroes who laid down their lives defending the United States and our laws?
Seriously people.
Humanity? Fairness?
24
This article should be re-titled "A Judge's Assault on ILLEGAL Immigration". Regardless I'm thankful he ruled as he did because we know amnesty doesn't work because we've tried it and it failed arguably playing a significant role in the mess we have today.
15
Well as I see it there has been a huge undocumented illegal immigrant problem in this country for at least two decades. So many years have passed that some Dreamers who came here as toddlers have young children that are legal US children. Multiple generations of illegals have now lived GOOD BUT ILLEGAL hard working societally beneficial responsible lives right here in America. Some have had relatives serve in the Military. More Than 100 Immigrants Have Been Granted Posthumous Citizenship After Dying In Combat In Iraq And Afghanistan. The vast majority of these folks are not criminals. Yes some are but most are people you be proud to call a neighbor and community member! The fact is you probably already do. What a waste not to welcome them with full citizenship.
Against this backdrop of a known problem needing a SOLUTION. A reasoned practical compassionate solution! The politicians of the House and Senate have done nothing but political maneuvering and name calling. Instead of effective governance... both parties hide behind their extreme ideologies and polarized positions. Our elected representatives need to do the hard work of legislative governance they were elected for. Do your jobs... debate compromise and pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Reform that while it may not satisfy the extreme fringes of either party will actually be fair to the vast majority of good hard working immigrants and good for America too!
Against this backdrop of a known problem needing a SOLUTION. A reasoned practical compassionate solution! The politicians of the House and Senate have done nothing but political maneuvering and name calling. Instead of effective governance... both parties hide behind their extreme ideologies and polarized positions. Our elected representatives need to do the hard work of legislative governance they were elected for. Do your jobs... debate compromise and pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Reform that while it may not satisfy the extreme fringes of either party will actually be fair to the vast majority of good hard working immigrants and good for America too!
6
Finally a wise judge. Obama's violations of the Constitution is getting really old. Obviously the man never read it.
20
Before "bringing some of these people out of the shadows of illegality" which "would be an economic boon," it will be necessary to bring some judges and many Republicans out of the darkness surrounding their intransigence.
10
The title of this editorial seems to me the last nail in the coffin of the NYT as newspaper of record and the emergence of the NYT as shrill advocate of one point of view--the print version of Fox News or MSNBC.
The facts are being ignored in the effort to produce a haranguing headline. The judge in question did not "assault immigration." The people in question are not "immigrants." They are illegal aliens. Legal immigrants will benefit from the judge's injunction; they will still have some chance at getting their routine paperwork completed before the immigration offices are flooded with people seeking temporary green cards.
The judge isn't even "assaulting" illegal immigration. He is merely addressing the very real fallout for states that would have to pick up the tab for the President's executive action--education, medical care, administrative processing, and so on. I see nothing wrong with a state challenging the President's unilateral actions that so directly affect its citizens.
The facts are being ignored in the effort to produce a haranguing headline. The judge in question did not "assault immigration." The people in question are not "immigrants." They are illegal aliens. Legal immigrants will benefit from the judge's injunction; they will still have some chance at getting their routine paperwork completed before the immigration offices are flooded with people seeking temporary green cards.
The judge isn't even "assaulting" illegal immigration. He is merely addressing the very real fallout for states that would have to pick up the tab for the President's executive action--education, medical care, administrative processing, and so on. I see nothing wrong with a state challenging the President's unilateral actions that so directly affect its citizens.
23
I'm always amazed at liberal hypocrisy. When the law or judicial ruling favors a liberal cause it should be obeyed without question. When a law or judicial ruling opposes a liberal cause it is unjust and should be defied. If Obama wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens all he has to do is convince the Senate and the House to change the law. Is that too much to ask in a Republic that still has the right to vote?
And to attack a judge whose ruling is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court should it make it there is nothing but but another manifestation of your biases and manifestly unfair.
And to attack a judge whose ruling is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court should it make it there is nothing but but another manifestation of your biases and manifestly unfair.
16
Judge Hanen likely believes one man should not rule America and make his own laws. However, the judge's court ruling is simply a recognition that the states were not given adequate notice to fund and enforce the new policies.
9
It is disingenuous to say congress has not acted on immigration reform; what is more accurate is that congress has not enacted reforms to the dictate of his imperial majesty, hence no reform legislation. It is also incorrect to state immigration is a pressing nationwide crisis; it is a problem but not a crisis. It is a problem that is created and aggravated by the refusal of the Obama administration to enforce current immigration laws.
12
It would be bad enough if he was merely failing to adequately enforce the law. But his actions are telling illegal aliens to stay and potential illegal immigrants to get in while they have the chance. Our president, the person charged with enforcing laws in this country, is telling a very large class of lawbreakers that they are "protected".
7
It is also disingenous to distort history; the Senate voted for immigration reform strongly in 2013, there are a number of Republicans who support those reforms including Jeb Bush, there are even more who crawfished when they wanted something (including Rick Perry), and the Senate bill would almost certainly have passed the House had it been allowed to come up for a vote.
Meanwhile, the House set a record for most time off and least legislation, as well as for worst polls, while people screamed about the President's playing golf.
You could look it up.
Meanwhile, the House set a record for most time off and least legislation, as well as for worst polls, while people screamed about the President's playing golf.
You could look it up.
4
When President Christie/Rubio/Walker/Ryan/Whomever takes office in 2017, all of these newly legalized folks are going to find themselves in some very hot water. What is given by presidential fiat can be taken back by presidential fiat. Were I an undocumented immigrant, I wouldn't in a million years turn over all of my particulars to the Feds, so that they know exactly where to find me when this disastrous order is overturned.
4
From a political science course a long ago in a galaxy far, far away-
Thoughts on all things political:
1. Consider the source.
2. Ask whose ox is being gored.
3. Ask who benefits.
4. And why...
Thoughts on all things political:
1. Consider the source.
2. Ask whose ox is being gored.
3. Ask who benefits.
4. And why...
7
A better title for the article would be "Obama's assault on American Citizens" since his blatantly unconstitutional action will cost trillions of taxpayer dollars.
13
Oh, please DO explain in detail why his Executive Order is un-Constitutional. let's see it. Don't leave out the historical precendents.
4
The opinion of Judge Hanen is far from an example of "Republican intransigence". He ruled, quite accurately, that President Obama's action goes beyond the limits of prosecutorial discretion in several important aspects. When a President, whether a Democrat or Republican, can take an action not justified by the law on the basis that doing so coincides with his or her subjective view of what constitutes humane and realistic policy, our republic is doomed.
21
Exactly. If Obama can get away with this, we should Congress. If we're going to have a monarchy, let's by all means make it efficient and disband the bloviating chambers of Congress.
When I read an editorial like this one, I really wonder why I read this newspaper.
The headline should be "the Circuit Court halted the Presidents Assault on the Constitution"
Editorial Board, you all need to go back and take a hard look at the constitution. Its also pretty clear that you did not read Judge Hanen's well written analysis. I might also add, so does the President need to do these things
The President told the American people over 20 times that he did not have the authority to issue the orders on Immigration. Judge Hanen agreed with the President in his analysis, although he did not make a dispositive ruling on the question.
It is highly unlikely that the 5th Circuit will upset the Judge's ruling on standing, and the decision should go back for a dispositive ruling on the Constitutional issues involved.
At this point, not sure on what the USSupreme Court could rule on.
The headline should be "the Circuit Court halted the Presidents Assault on the Constitution"
Editorial Board, you all need to go back and take a hard look at the constitution. Its also pretty clear that you did not read Judge Hanen's well written analysis. I might also add, so does the President need to do these things
The President told the American people over 20 times that he did not have the authority to issue the orders on Immigration. Judge Hanen agreed with the President in his analysis, although he did not make a dispositive ruling on the question.
It is highly unlikely that the 5th Circuit will upset the Judge's ruling on standing, and the decision should go back for a dispositive ruling on the Constitutional issues involved.
At this point, not sure on what the USSupreme Court could rule on.
9
Is Judge Hanen anything more than another politician in a judicial robe, much like the what we have on the Supreme Court, where we have more than one politician in a judicial robe?
This is clearly about politics and not the legality of the action taken by President Obama.
What has he done since elected president that has not enraged the Republicans and Tea Party? His recent prayer breakfast comment is a case in point. At that event, he could have read the Sermon on the Mount and said he endorsed what was said, and the response from his permanent critics would have been more outrage.
This is clearly about politics and not the legality of the action taken by President Obama.
What has he done since elected president that has not enraged the Republicans and Tea Party? His recent prayer breakfast comment is a case in point. At that event, he could have read the Sermon on the Mount and said he endorsed what was said, and the response from his permanent critics would have been more outrage.
9
Obama pushed the limit on his executive authority and appropriately got beaten back. The sheer scale of the proposed change - giving legal albeit temporary - legal status to 10 million illegal immigrants makes this unprecedented. Even Obama admitted previously that it was not within his powers to do this.
Like it or not, this kind of change has to go through Congress. The executive amnesty program is effectively dead now.
Like it or not, this kind of change has to go through Congress. The executive amnesty program is effectively dead now.
7
This judge has set the Republican agenda back decades. As a result I hope the answer is to deport 10 million undocumented aliens back to where ever. Obama should line up every available bus and plane in this country to transport them back to their home country. In the process we need to discontinue the practice of granting any Cuban reaching American shores immediate asylum. No one ever discusses the fact that Cubans should be treated just like any other illegal entering the country.
2
However you feel about this, it is necessary for our government to work as structured, not as a company were we have a boss who is frustrated with his subordinates but cannot fire them.
Our country is a country of laws and the President must follow the law. He cannot create law on his own. By taking an entire class of persons and saying you are legal and here are your benefits he has not used discretion but has established a new law. This in not within his authority.
I like most Americans wish for immigration reform if for nothing else to allow us to move on to more important things like the economy. But we elect our officials to work together because it protects us from this type of unilateral action by one branch of government.
The President should try to work with Congress or move on to other things. This type of actions weakens our country and does little to make our partisan divide grow smaller.
Our country is a country of laws and the President must follow the law. He cannot create law on his own. By taking an entire class of persons and saying you are legal and here are your benefits he has not used discretion but has established a new law. This in not within his authority.
I like most Americans wish for immigration reform if for nothing else to allow us to move on to more important things like the economy. But we elect our officials to work together because it protects us from this type of unilateral action by one branch of government.
The President should try to work with Congress or move on to other things. This type of actions weakens our country and does little to make our partisan divide grow smaller.
5
Congress has the constitutional power and responsibility to make laws, not the President. If the States feel strongly about granting green cards to the undocumented parents of citizens, then they should pass laws providing for such. If the President is that concerned about preventing tragic results then let him focus on poverty in the US and the plight of our neighbors to the south instead of overstepping his bounds.
5
The reason a lot of areas with large illegal immigrant populations regard some form of legalization as a "boon" is they think the Feds will throw money at them to care for them once they are legal. Today, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for Obamacare so they use local emergency rooms without paying for it. Hospitals don't like that and tell politicos they don't like that. Medicaid, the program that is a budget buster all over this country, used to pay for some of the uncompensated care.
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/
But Obamacare curtailed that. So, yes, there is support for Obama's action: from those you would expect, municipalities with their hands out.
http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/
But Obamacare curtailed that. So, yes, there is support for Obama's action: from those you would expect, municipalities with their hands out.
4
Seems that when you can't shoot the message, shoot the messenger. Classic political strategy on both sides of the aisle.
So few people, even on the far left can support the legality of Obama's action. Why then does it matter where the judge came from or who appointed him. if so few are arguing that Obama's actions were legal. The judge has stopped the process going forward until the higher courts can hear the case, because as he noted the policy was established without a period of time allotted for public notice and comment. The reference to the flood and Noah was not the basis of his decision.
Given the dubious footing the case is based on, I think the last thing anyone would want would be for illegals to be granted status and social security numbers now, only to have them pulled away later. That would be incredibly cruel.
So few people, even on the far left can support the legality of Obama's action. Why then does it matter where the judge came from or who appointed him. if so few are arguing that Obama's actions were legal. The judge has stopped the process going forward until the higher courts can hear the case, because as he noted the policy was established without a period of time allotted for public notice and comment. The reference to the flood and Noah was not the basis of his decision.
Given the dubious footing the case is based on, I think the last thing anyone would want would be for illegals to be granted status and social security numbers now, only to have them pulled away later. That would be incredibly cruel.
5
It is one thing to exercise prosecutorial authority where one has to decide for any number of reasons that an individual case does not have high enough priority to pursue. I get that and that is reasonable. It is quite another to decide that prosecutors will elect not to pursue a whole class of persons because the POTUS wants to establish practice that law does not expressly enable and when, in fact, law expressly disallows. The immigration policy that Obama establishes is in fact illegal, statutorily not legal.
I happen to think that we must find a way to persuade Rs and Ds to come up with an immigration policy that does what JEB suggests. And, that is not terribly dissimilar to what more moderate Ds want. It's quite simply that what Obama is doing is part of the arrogance of government that is a form of corruption: finding ways to get things done based not directly on law but by indirect clever fiat.
More than ever than I can remember, we have a growing problem with gov't fiat, with regulatory arrogance. Blame it on Congress? Hardly! It seems to be that whoever is in power, R or D, elects arrogance over reasonableness. Sad times!
I happen to think that we must find a way to persuade Rs and Ds to come up with an immigration policy that does what JEB suggests. And, that is not terribly dissimilar to what more moderate Ds want. It's quite simply that what Obama is doing is part of the arrogance of government that is a form of corruption: finding ways to get things done based not directly on law but by indirect clever fiat.
More than ever than I can remember, we have a growing problem with gov't fiat, with regulatory arrogance. Blame it on Congress? Hardly! It seems to be that whoever is in power, R or D, elects arrogance over reasonableness. Sad times!
6
Wouldn't want to assault anyone not following the law now, would we?
3
Obama's action on immigration does nothing but make the sovereignty denying problem of mass illegal immigration into the USA worse. Please note that none of the bipartisan "reform proposals" have ever promised to go all out to rapidly enforce our immigration laws after a mass amnesty via a national ID, computerized check in and check out of visitor travel visas and an instant warrant for arrest when a foreigner does not leave on time, strict enforcement of e-verify and bankrupting fine and jail for employers who hire illegals and needed delegation of immigration enforcement down to local and state police. After all the FBI does not turn down assistance from our 1 million plus local and state officers when some member of our elite is attacked or there is a terrorist attack. Local police were allowed to pursue and die to catch the Marathon bombers. Obama's intent is to beat down, simply make the American people give up on any semblance of their right to control our borders for the benefit of the citizen majority. While delivering to the few percent business owner and Wall Street nobility the ability to continue our nation's tradition of slave labor using desperate immigrants, and giving his Democratic party brand of social welfare a never ending number of votes from a burgeoning underclass of immigrant, and increasingly citizen, 1/3 of a living wage - wage slaves.
12
Congrats. Literally, every single sentence of this is false: no mean achievement.
4
The essentially political nature of the lawsuit can be seen by the list of plaintiff states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Except for perhaps the two border states, it seems implausible at best that the complaining states can claim actual injury from the president's order. Wisconsin? Indiana? Seriously?
4
Landlocked states like Indiana can clearly claim injury.
Limited resources from limited jobs and an aging population entitled to the social safety net they paid into over a lifetime should not be jettisoned to the back of the line to provide instant benefits to undocumented immigrants.
How many people, outside the University of Wisconsin and its student base are clamoring to put down roots in Wisconsin to bolster its tax revenues to sustain a flood of illegal immigrants? Not many.
Clearly these states argue that they will be harmed by the costs of an influx of illegals because the poor in Black and White communities will immediately experience economic hardship.
Implausibility is in the eyes of the denier.
Limited resources from limited jobs and an aging population entitled to the social safety net they paid into over a lifetime should not be jettisoned to the back of the line to provide instant benefits to undocumented immigrants.
How many people, outside the University of Wisconsin and its student base are clamoring to put down roots in Wisconsin to bolster its tax revenues to sustain a flood of illegal immigrants? Not many.
Clearly these states argue that they will be harmed by the costs of an influx of illegals because the poor in Black and White communities will immediately experience economic hardship.
Implausibility is in the eyes of the denier.
8
The essentially political nature of the opposition to the lawsuit can be seen in the list of states that join the lawsuit in support of DHS.
8
You may be surprised to learn that the US has a highly efficient road, rail and air network.
Illegal immigration is a problem in every state
Illegal immigration is a problem in every state
6
Immigration for the purpose of contribution to the economic prosperity of the Republic is one thing. Immigration to satisfy political aspirations of a Party is another. This is why Executive Orders by an incumbent of either party is bad.
America is no longer the country of free enterprise and wide open spaces, Enlarging the Public Sector is not a goal I support, especially when it is done not from surplus but from money borrowed to be repaid in effect by the next generation and beyond. Immigration law should have at is core the considered effect on the Republic. The public sector economic multiplier is always lower than the Private Sector multiplier
America is no longer the country of free enterprise and wide open spaces, Enlarging the Public Sector is not a goal I support, especially when it is done not from surplus but from money borrowed to be repaid in effect by the next generation and beyond. Immigration law should have at is core the considered effect on the Republic. The public sector economic multiplier is always lower than the Private Sector multiplier
13
That pesky constitution. Great when it is on my side. It should be ignored when it isn't.
14
Has anyone considered the amount of income tax refunds that the illegal workers will be paid if they are legitimate and file tax returns? I believe that to say they will be contributing to the coffers is incorrect. Rather, these income taxpayers will be given $1,000 per child plus another $4,000 in refunds (actual cash) due to the earned income credit and the child credits.
15
Most illegal immigrants don't pay federal income taxes because they don't make enough money to owe federal income taxes. However, the IRS recent ruled that given social security numbers they can file for Earned Income Tax Credits over the past three years, even if they filed no tax returns during those years.
5
Where would those tax refunds and credits wind up?
3
"protecting millions of undocumented workers from deportation" really? why? can we "protect" bank robbers from jail? can we "protect" income tax evaders from fees and seizures? why do we ignore one set of laws over another? this set of crimes is totally okay to break or ignore, but not others? We disagree with the law? change it. to what? ANYONE who can get here can stay, enjoy the benefits of the system without having to go through any kind of process? we would be overwhelmed in a week.
Immigration wasn't attacked in court, the attempt to subvert the rule of law was attacked. We need to reform immigration. make the rules clear, the consequences for breaking that law clear and quick. and all decide that we will live under those laws and apply them to everyone. after three amnesties (each which was supposed to be the last) and the influx of millions of people illegally we cant look away anymore. and the favoritism that we continually show one group in particular is a kind of racism, an accident of geography that keeps us arguing over how we are supposedly victimizing Hispanic peoples because we prosecute them. if we shared a border with any other large impoverished country I suppose we would be accused of persecuting them too.
Immigration wasn't attacked in court, the attempt to subvert the rule of law was attacked. We need to reform immigration. make the rules clear, the consequences for breaking that law clear and quick. and all decide that we will live under those laws and apply them to everyone. after three amnesties (each which was supposed to be the last) and the influx of millions of people illegally we cant look away anymore. and the favoritism that we continually show one group in particular is a kind of racism, an accident of geography that keeps us arguing over how we are supposedly victimizing Hispanic peoples because we prosecute them. if we shared a border with any other large impoverished country I suppose we would be accused of persecuting them too.
20
to be honest Obama has protected income tax evaders. Rangle, Gitner and Sharpton.
4
Really shouldn't these actions cause a massive backlash against the Republicans. Like the efforts to repress the vote. It should make the affected groups so angry that they something new to them. Vote! What's fair has northing to do with anything in politics. Those who exercise their franchise wins.
4
Foreign nationals who deliberately circumvent immigration checkpoints, overstay their visas or otherwise commit acts of fraud and deception in order to remain in a nation not their own have only themselves to blame for their predicament. President Obama is showing nothing but contempt for legitimate immigrants and their enormous sacrifices by coddling millions of undocumented aliens. This must stop.
21
What did the children of these immigrants do to deserve deportment?
That's where this discussions started. The original plan was to allow these children to avoid deportment as long as they went to school, had jobs, or joined the military.
Once the children were protected, it seemed draconian to break up their families by forcing their parents to leave the country. That's the part of the plan we are discussing today.
As for the "coddling millions of undocumented aliens", how should we deal with them? How do you go about deporting millions of people to countries that may refuse to let them back in?
In the real world, they're here, and they're here to stay.
We need to make the best of the situation.
The best thing we could do would be to get those millions of people working and contributing to society instead of locking them up and having the taxpayers foot the bill for their health and welfare.
Does it hurt legal immigrants, perhaps. But again, our options are severely constrained by the shear numbers of immigrants we have already allowed to live here.
That's where this discussions started. The original plan was to allow these children to avoid deportment as long as they went to school, had jobs, or joined the military.
Once the children were protected, it seemed draconian to break up their families by forcing their parents to leave the country. That's the part of the plan we are discussing today.
As for the "coddling millions of undocumented aliens", how should we deal with them? How do you go about deporting millions of people to countries that may refuse to let them back in?
In the real world, they're here, and they're here to stay.
We need to make the best of the situation.
The best thing we could do would be to get those millions of people working and contributing to society instead of locking them up and having the taxpayers foot the bill for their health and welfare.
Does it hurt legal immigrants, perhaps. But again, our options are severely constrained by the shear numbers of immigrants we have already allowed to live here.
3
Fascinating. Is this somehow supposed to garner votes for Republicans, because this is one issue that won't be forgotten by the time we get to November 2016.
4
Why on earth is Obama and the NY Times so eager to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?
The American people will pay for THREE years of the legalized aliens back-tax credits. Last week, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified before Congress and stated that Pres. Obamas Executive Amnesty allows for the newly legalized illegal aliens to qualify for the generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
They will also be allowed to claim retroactive credits for up to three years once they are issued a social security number -- even if they didn't file or pay taxes at the time!
Illegal aliens will more easily be able to vote in elections. Work permits aren't the only thing that illegal aliens will receive under the Executive Amnesty. Rather, they'll be granted drivers licenses by states and Social Security numbers, too.
Various state election officials testified before Congress last week that they lack the tools to be able to detect such a massive number of potentially fraudulent voter registrations generated by state DMVs.
American workers will be even harder hit in the labor force. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) just released a study with a shocking finding over the past decade, for every new job created, the U.S. has imported 2 new immigrants.
Since 2000, 18 million new immigrants have arrived in the U.S., but only 9.3 million new jobs have been created.
President Obama should be ashamed.
The American people will pay for THREE years of the legalized aliens back-tax credits. Last week, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified before Congress and stated that Pres. Obamas Executive Amnesty allows for the newly legalized illegal aliens to qualify for the generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
They will also be allowed to claim retroactive credits for up to three years once they are issued a social security number -- even if they didn't file or pay taxes at the time!
Illegal aliens will more easily be able to vote in elections. Work permits aren't the only thing that illegal aliens will receive under the Executive Amnesty. Rather, they'll be granted drivers licenses by states and Social Security numbers, too.
Various state election officials testified before Congress last week that they lack the tools to be able to detect such a massive number of potentially fraudulent voter registrations generated by state DMVs.
American workers will be even harder hit in the labor force. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) just released a study with a shocking finding over the past decade, for every new job created, the U.S. has imported 2 new immigrants.
Since 2000, 18 million new immigrants have arrived in the U.S., but only 9.3 million new jobs have been created.
President Obama should be ashamed.
28
Spoken in precisely the tone and thought of Christian charity that we've come to expect.
4
What would it cost the U.S. to deport every undocumented person in this country? Do we have that kind of money? No. So enforcement guidelines makes economic sense. We could put a big wall between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico. But it seems nutty to build 2 Great Walls, when we have dangerous bridges and need more and better roads. Where the fiscal conservatives on this issue!
3
It will never cost more to deport an undocumented immigrant than it will to extend taxpayer funded social safety net benefits to the same immigrant for 18 years or more.
You really need new lib talking points.
You really need new lib talking points.
22
No one I know ever suggested rounding up and deporting every illegal. What we suggest, and what we were promised at the "amnesty to end all amnesties" in 1986, was enforcement at the workplace and other points of contact with government services. Each administration since that time has utterly failed to take any meaningful steps to enforce the laws. Indeed, even if the President continues on this crazy path of "semi-legalizing" some of the illegal immigrants, NOTHING will have changed at points of contact in terms of enforcement and MORE illegal immigrants will begin arriving, safe in the knowledge that we simply don't enforce our immigration laws.
As for fiscal policy, we may not have the money to deport every illegal immigrant, but I suggest that we do not have the money to educate and provide medical care, not to mention house and feed every illegal immigrant.
As for fiscal policy, we may not have the money to deport every illegal immigrant, but I suggest that we do not have the money to educate and provide medical care, not to mention house and feed every illegal immigrant.
5
Ah yes, and there are never Democratic minded judges who "assault" Republican initiated legislation. Nor has there ever been Democratic intransigence.
9
Do you have any facts to back up your "feelings"...
4
We have the resources and ability to deport all 12 million illegal aliens. Its certainly possible to enforce a system of E-Verify along with ICE raids on employers and businesses that makes it impossible for illegal aliens to get or keep a job. Millions of illegal aliens who are currently employed would lose their jobs and would be unable to find another job would leave the United States. Make it difficult to rent a place to stay and encourage illegal aliens to leave or be jailed or fined will deport millions more. Illegal aliens who grew up in the United States are not US taxpayers problem. The parents are responsible for raising their child with no future and these children should be sent back along with their families. Illegal aliens are NOT WELCOME in the United States and we need to make that very clear to stop future illegal immigration.
17
There's a lot of yelling here about the way that "liberals" (a word that only about three people writing seem to understand, but we'll let that slide) attack this judge's decision, and cheer for the "activist," judges who force gay marriage.
Here's the diff between the two.
1. This immigration ruling's coming from a judge who's in the minority, and who's made his right-wing beliefs very, very clear. The gay marriage rulings are coming from a whole passel of judges, who represent a pretty wide range of political views.
2. Judge Hanen was cherrypicked. The other judges weren't.
3. Judge Hanen's ruling contains a bunch of weird Biblical language, that seems just as important as as any citations of the law. It also contains a lot of ranting about tyranny. The other judges focused on the Constitution, and the question of equal protection under the law.
4. The Texas jidge threw a lot of facts that aren't facts into the hopper, in order to "prove," that harm was being done. The other rulings point out that there's no evidence gay marriage hurts anybody, and a fair bit of evidence that denying the right to marry costs people and families.
5. The Texas ruling's aimed at deporting 10 million people and damn the consequences, and sealing the border hermetically. these are fantasies. The marriage rights rulings rest on the simple proposition that under the Constotution, you cannot have government a) impose its particular religious views, b) deny equal protection under the law.
Here's the diff between the two.
1. This immigration ruling's coming from a judge who's in the minority, and who's made his right-wing beliefs very, very clear. The gay marriage rulings are coming from a whole passel of judges, who represent a pretty wide range of political views.
2. Judge Hanen was cherrypicked. The other judges weren't.
3. Judge Hanen's ruling contains a bunch of weird Biblical language, that seems just as important as as any citations of the law. It also contains a lot of ranting about tyranny. The other judges focused on the Constitution, and the question of equal protection under the law.
4. The Texas jidge threw a lot of facts that aren't facts into the hopper, in order to "prove," that harm was being done. The other rulings point out that there's no evidence gay marriage hurts anybody, and a fair bit of evidence that denying the right to marry costs people and families.
5. The Texas ruling's aimed at deporting 10 million people and damn the consequences, and sealing the border hermetically. these are fantasies. The marriage rights rulings rest on the simple proposition that under the Constotution, you cannot have government a) impose its particular religious views, b) deny equal protection under the law.
12
A (South) Texas judge agrees to do the bidding of a conservative politician? Shocking.
8
If you've NEVER been down to South Texas (Brownsville, Laredo, et al.), and seen the stark contrasts in living conditions separated by the Rio Grande, your view is [but] ideological.
4
It doesn't matter what the Republicans and the Nativists want. They have lost, but they have enough power now to create a lot of human misery. In 10-20 years as the next generation, who are US citizens, come into age, things will change.
In the ACA, in gay marriage, they have lost are fighting a desperate rearguard action. In immigration, they have lost. They are fighting it, but they'll never succeed.
In the ACA, in gay marriage, they have lost are fighting a desperate rearguard action. In immigration, they have lost. They are fighting it, but they'll never succeed.
6
What about us not-Republicans and not-nativists? There are many of us who wonder how we can afford an endless stream of uneducated and unskilled illegal immigrants. I am no nativist; I approve of legal immigration, which is in part focused on bringing in the talented and self-sufficient. (CHain migration, another problem.)
8
Anyone remember this?
"The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.
And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic."
-Barack Obama
I am stunned at the lack of consistency and rational analysis among progressives (liberals). The thought process appears to be: If it favors the Blue Team, its legal and morally acceptable. If it favors the Red Team, its a violation of civil liberties, dictatorship, and evil.
When this editorial was written, did anyone ask, "What's going to happen if a Republican takes the presidency?" Did anyone ask, "What was our position when the president told Univision that he was not a king?"
Of course not. That is the problem with a lack of diversity in the newsroom and among the editorial staff.
"The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States. I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed, and Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.
And what that means is is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place, even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic."
-Barack Obama
I am stunned at the lack of consistency and rational analysis among progressives (liberals). The thought process appears to be: If it favors the Blue Team, its legal and morally acceptable. If it favors the Red Team, its a violation of civil liberties, dictatorship, and evil.
When this editorial was written, did anyone ask, "What's going to happen if a Republican takes the presidency?" Did anyone ask, "What was our position when the president told Univision that he was not a king?"
Of course not. That is the problem with a lack of diversity in the newsroom and among the editorial staff.
21
Well, it is nice the Times finally admits it. The End justifies the Means. Republican "intransigence" trumps following legal procedure, which does not even warrant a comment here, and that IS the bulk of what this ruling was about. Silly Republicans and States for insisting that Mr Obama follow due process.
18
I believe words in the presidential oath of office are "faithfully execute," not "faithfully legislate." In other words, enforce existing law, not make new law. And as for "prosecutorial discretion," that's to be applied ONE case at a time, not FIVE MILLION cases at one time.
15
If people who profess a love for the United States as a “nation of laws, not of men” would simply obey the law then this entire problem is solved. The president said 22 times that he was not a king and lacked the power to ignore immigration law as currently enacted. Now, after and electoral rebuke in November, Mr. Obama is engaging in the rule of one man over our laws on the books. Americans are not eager to become indentured servants to a large class of people who ignore our laws then want our money to feed their families. The Times seems to think that if lawlessness is widespread enough then more lawlessness is the answer, and therefore the concept of a “nation of laws” be damned. Thank God that we still have judges who protect the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The Times should be ashamed of themselves for cheerleading lawlessness all around.
The Times should be ashamed of themselves for cheerleading lawlessness all around.
13
Federal District Court judges should not be setting national immigration policy. The Constitution specifically provides that it is within the power of Congress to set immigration policy. It is the job of the Chief Executive to implement Congressional mandates. If there be a conflict between the two branches, it is for the US Supreme Court to resolve, not some forlorn federal trial court judge in South Texas.
That is what the Republicans would claim if it were their bull being gored by the judge. That's what they claimed in Alabama recently when a federal district court judge decided to sua sponte rewrite Alabama's marriage laws.
That is what the Republicans would claim if it were their bull being gored by the judge. That's what they claimed in Alabama recently when a federal district court judge decided to sua sponte rewrite Alabama's marriage laws.
Immigration
Affordable Health Care
Income Inequality
Failing Infrastructure
Where are you plans GOP? On Health Care one Republican says no alternative would be available until at least 2017. And Paul Ryan asserts the GOP has no obligation to provide an alternative.
On Immigration....the President has been pleading with the GOP to submit a proposal for dealing with the problem for much of his second term. They have failed to do so and when he tries to then tackle the problem himself, they go nuclear and head for the courts. "You can't do that." Or rather "We won't do anything and we aren't going to let you do so either."
On income equality and wage stagnation, Ted Cruz now has the sheer gall to blame the problem on President Obama after the GOP has steadfastly refused to increase the minimum wage or craft a badly needed infrastructure bill as an economic stimulus.
The GOP....a proud record of doing nothing for the last 6 years.
Affordable Health Care
Income Inequality
Failing Infrastructure
Where are you plans GOP? On Health Care one Republican says no alternative would be available until at least 2017. And Paul Ryan asserts the GOP has no obligation to provide an alternative.
On Immigration....the President has been pleading with the GOP to submit a proposal for dealing with the problem for much of his second term. They have failed to do so and when he tries to then tackle the problem himself, they go nuclear and head for the courts. "You can't do that." Or rather "We won't do anything and we aren't going to let you do so either."
On income equality and wage stagnation, Ted Cruz now has the sheer gall to blame the problem on President Obama after the GOP has steadfastly refused to increase the minimum wage or craft a badly needed infrastructure bill as an economic stimulus.
The GOP....a proud record of doing nothing for the last 6 years.
8
Existing federal law addresses each of the talking points you mention. 1. Immigration: Illegal aliens break federal law when they enter our country. They should be deported forthwith. 2. Affordable health care: Affordable by whom? You mean free health care for those who Democrats deem incapable of paying for it themselves, don't you? Look at the feature story in The Times yesterday. It reveals that one company created to service clients under Obamacare is $150 million in the hole because the clients demanded health care services that were too expensive for the company to finance, even with federal subsidies. 3. Income inequality: Ludicous. The only remedy proposed by Democrats for this supposed problem is more taxes on the top 10% of earners, who already pay 80% of all Federal income taxes collected. Is it fair to demand more from them? 4. Failing infrastructure: The federal government is fully funded for infrastructure maintenance and replacement in every budget. Look it up. And by the way, what happened to all the shovel ready jobs that were to be funded with the $1 trilllion stimulus that Obama demanded and received upon election? Here's a hint: It went to teacher unions, Solyndra, and other Democrat special interest groups, not to the infrastructure jobs and projects promised by the president.
7
Providing driver's licenses is an economic burden? That's a pretty far stretch from reality.
Judge Hanen's public statements seem to indicate that he's a bigot and I find it hard not to include Texas Governor (and previously AG) Abbot in that assessment due to his past statements such as "I go into the office, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home." His apparent glee over this ruling seems more than political.
Judge Hanen's public statements seem to indicate that he's a bigot and I find it hard not to include Texas Governor (and previously AG) Abbot in that assessment due to his past statements such as "I go into the office, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home." His apparent glee over this ruling seems more than political.
6
>Providing driver's licenses is an economic burden? That's a pretty far stretch from reality.
Apparently it is when talking about voter IDs.
Apparently it is when talking about voter IDs.
2
The president needs a "permisos" from the American people to proceed. He doesn't have it. Why do you think that he has waited until the end of his presidency to fall on this sword?
9
The point at which the Times article breaks down:
"He danced around the fundamental point — as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states."
And of course, the Federal government HAS set policy. The Executive Orders seek to undermine that policy. The Times has momentarily become confused about which branch is the Legislative one.
"He danced around the fundamental point — as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states."
And of course, the Federal government HAS set policy. The Executive Orders seek to undermine that policy. The Times has momentarily become confused about which branch is the Legislative one.
10
#1 - first sentence; change 'undocumented immigrants' to 'illegal aliens'. The truth matters. The same truth that prevents the president from saying "Islamic Terrorism". Stop using words as the tools of dishonest minds. These words are meant to cover up the fact that government is not being fair. The intent of the president's action was never intended to help the illegal immigrants. The intent and sole emphasis of this rule was to run over best intentions of the American citizens who do want to see fair reforms in the welfare of illegal aliens. But its dangerous to lie to us continually by using terms like 'undocumented immigrant', 'man-caused-disasters', 'violent extremism'. Its dangerous because not everyone is going to continue to put up with this behavior being forced upon us.
6
The judge didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of Obama's executive order. He found it likely that Obama violated the law when he formulated his policy and that the states would likely suffer irreparable harm if Obama was allowed to proceed.
Next step is an appeal to the 5th Circuit. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will get involved at that point since they like to have a trial on the merits before they jump into the fray.
In any event, this is likely to take some time to work its' way through the courts. By that time, Obama will be gone and so will he pen and his phone.
Next step is an appeal to the 5th Circuit. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will get involved at that point since they like to have a trial on the merits before they jump into the fray.
In any event, this is likely to take some time to work its' way through the courts. By that time, Obama will be gone and so will he pen and his phone.
7
I don't understand why the illegals don't fight for change in their own impoverished countries like we did over one hundred years ago it seems they take the easy route instead crossing our borders illegally using our welfare services and not trying to assimilate into our society and that in itself is why so many americans do not like them here instead they only want to speak spanish want their kids to have spanish speaking teachers and repatriate money to their home country CALL IT WHAT IT IS AN INVASION PURE AND SIMPLE
16
I have no idea how to solve this problem but maybe the reason these immigrants don't try to change policies in their own impoverished countries is because they face imprisonment or execution from powerful forces -- government and criminal -- if they try.
If you wish to tell them that's too bad, that's your choice.
If you wish to tell them that's too bad, that's your choice.
5
The NYT seems steadfast in its refusal to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal entry into this country. So, once again, your reading public must call you to account. Consider yourself called. By the way, the vast majority of those of us who adamantly oppose illegal entry are not nativist xenophobes, but are strongly supportive of legal, controlled immigration. Given that there are so many individuals from the world over still wish to come to this country to find a better life, it seems horribly unfair to favor groups who have the geographic advantage that enables them to arrive at our borders and evade the immigration process. Yes, it is difficult. But consider the plight of the many who would come here from Somalia, India, Ukraine.....many would gladly make the trek that our neighbors to the south are able to manage, but for an ocean that renders it impossible. Give a thought to them. Much as we would wish to, it is impossible for us to accept all those who would wish to come here. We owe it to them to give them all an equal opportunity to apply for admission.
25
Leftists who cheer this usurpation of legislative power by the executive because it is being wielded by one of their own will be the greatest losers if it stands and establishes precedence. The power here claimed, " prosecutorial discretion" that is an effective repeal is a negative power that would be most favorable to a future executive opposed to government action. Imagine what Reagan could have done with this amendment of the " Living Constitution"? What will Rand Paul do with it? Law will swing with every presidential election without the braking force of the constitutional checks and balances.
16
This writer left out the important part of the opinion, which was that Obama could fail to deport illegal immigrants. The judge didn't rule on that. What he said Obama didn't have the right to do was provide illegal immigrants with benefits, such as the right to Social Security benefits, the right to work, and others. Conferring those benefits would need congressional action. This is how what Obama is doing with his executive action is different from earlier executive actions on immigration. Why did the writer leave that information out of his article? Is he biased or something?
18
@mardy: If the judge said what you say he did, then the judge is not familiar with 8 CFR section 274a.12(c)(14), which authorizes employment for "an alien who has been granted deferred action, an act of administrative convenience to the government which gives some cases lower priority, if the alien establishes an economic need for employment." This regulation has been around for a long time, a lot longer than President Obama has been in office. Apparently you didn't know and couldn't be bothered to find out. Are you biased or something?
3
Ugh.
Why does the current iteration of the Republican Party (you know - the party in the majority in BOTH houses of Congress) hate PEOPLE?
If they'd just offer some kind of ALTERNATIVE to the things they don't support, I could understand it.
But, no. We've got a judge who SHOULD have recused himself from any discussion of the matter weighing in on a subject that Republican cabal hasn't dealt with.
Does the GOP offer an alternative? Nope. Just another threat to impeach the POTUS. THAT'S their solution to the immigration crisis.
Wow. Hope they didn't wear themselves out coming up with *that* solution.
Why does the current iteration of the Republican Party (you know - the party in the majority in BOTH houses of Congress) hate PEOPLE?
If they'd just offer some kind of ALTERNATIVE to the things they don't support, I could understand it.
But, no. We've got a judge who SHOULD have recused himself from any discussion of the matter weighing in on a subject that Republican cabal hasn't dealt with.
Does the GOP offer an alternative? Nope. Just another threat to impeach the POTUS. THAT'S their solution to the immigration crisis.
Wow. Hope they didn't wear themselves out coming up with *that* solution.
40
Following the current law is an alternative, whether or not you like it.
6
If we had meaningful, actionable immigration policy right now we wouldn't be having this discussion. Obviously, what we have isn't working and even Republicans have agreed that there is no way to simply send 11 million illegals "home," wherever that is, according to the policy that's on the books.
So, I ask again - does the GOP have an alternative?
NO.
So, I ask again - does the GOP have an alternative?
NO.
How is choosing to continue enforcing laws as currently enacted not an alternative to what the president wants to do?
5
I think there is an easy solution to the illegal immigration problem. All of the blue states who support Obama's amnesty program and the continuing open border policies of this administration should step forward and volunteer to accept any illegal immigrant who desires to saty in this country. In othe words, they could become sanctuary states. It seems that it would be the humanitarian thing to do.
New york could be the first to lead by example.
New york could be the first to lead by example.
13
Does anyone who so adamantly oppose Obama's action believe that the Government has the legal right to deport United States Citizens? The 14th amendment to the US Constitution granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in this country. All you people demanding that the Government follow the law, also want to deport legal US citizens.
Of course the Government can deport the illegal alien parents of children who are US citizens. But what do we do with the children? Put then all in foster care at out expense? Violate the law and deport them too?
Are you the same people who deny that Barack Obama is a US citizen??
Of course the Government can deport the illegal alien parents of children who are US citizens. But what do we do with the children? Put then all in foster care at out expense? Violate the law and deport them too?
Are you the same people who deny that Barack Obama is a US citizen??
3
Jeff, its time for a quick history lesson.
The 14th Amendment was enacted to remedy Jim Crow laws, that denied citizenship rights to newly freed slaves. It was never intended by a syllable of its wording or the whole of the Congressional record when it was debated by legislators to allow undocumented immigrants to exploit it for personal gain at the expense of others.
What do we do with the children? We stop them at the border and send them back. Reuniting families? Send the parents who entered illegally back to reunite on the other side of the US/Mexico border and apply for citizenship legally...and wait.
The 14th Amendment was enacted to remedy Jim Crow laws, that denied citizenship rights to newly freed slaves. It was never intended by a syllable of its wording or the whole of the Congressional record when it was debated by legislators to allow undocumented immigrants to exploit it for personal gain at the expense of others.
What do we do with the children? We stop them at the border and send them back. Reuniting families? Send the parents who entered illegally back to reunite on the other side of the US/Mexico border and apply for citizenship legally...and wait.
5
He danced around the fundamental point that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the Federal Government. I guess Obama believes he is the entire Federal Government. No need to involve the people's elected representative now that we have a king!
8
It's fairly stunning to see this level of right-wing ignorance of how our government actually works, let alone American history, let alone of what the President's Exec Order actually says and does.
All you gots to say, folks, is that you're concerned, you don't want more immigrants period, here's what you want to do to address the problem, you don't care for the way the Prez does business, stuff like that.
I don't mind the disagreement and criticism and attack part, but the sheer knownothingness kind of gets me down.
All you gots to say, folks, is that you're concerned, you don't want more immigrants period, here's what you want to do to address the problem, you don't care for the way the Prez does business, stuff like that.
I don't mind the disagreement and criticism and attack part, but the sheer knownothingness kind of gets me down.
3
So laws are now optional?
If President Walker signs an executive order repealing banking and environmental laws that he doesn't like, I don't want to hear any complaints from the Times editorial board.
If President Walker signs an executive order repealing banking and environmental laws that he doesn't like, I don't want to hear any complaints from the Times editorial board.
13
The immigrants, legal or illegal, come to the United States for economic opportunity.
No amount of border securing will stop illegal entry faster or more efficiently than will drying up the jobs. And that can be done legislatively. Mandatory fines, to begin at $20,000 per illegal employee and rise with additional instances, and mandatory jail time starting at one year/no parole for CEOs of hiring companies would force domestic hiring. Add in a whistleblower incentive similar to that for those reporting suspected tax evasion and the divestiture of illegal employees would happen overnight.
It won't happen. Corporate American, whether big or small, likes nothing better than cheap, exploitable labor, particularly when the taxpayer is picking up all of the associated social costs. Our political class jostles for position to sell out taxpayers in return for their own personal gain.
These feints at immigration - whether putting the National Guard on the border or opening American for "Dreamers" - are just a distraction that politicians use to gin up various voter segments. They are sound and fury, signifying nothing. Because 'nothing' is the change they have bee paid to deliver on immigration, and that is what both sides are doing.
No amount of border securing will stop illegal entry faster or more efficiently than will drying up the jobs. And that can be done legislatively. Mandatory fines, to begin at $20,000 per illegal employee and rise with additional instances, and mandatory jail time starting at one year/no parole for CEOs of hiring companies would force domestic hiring. Add in a whistleblower incentive similar to that for those reporting suspected tax evasion and the divestiture of illegal employees would happen overnight.
It won't happen. Corporate American, whether big or small, likes nothing better than cheap, exploitable labor, particularly when the taxpayer is picking up all of the associated social costs. Our political class jostles for position to sell out taxpayers in return for their own personal gain.
These feints at immigration - whether putting the National Guard on the border or opening American for "Dreamers" - are just a distraction that politicians use to gin up various voter segments. They are sound and fury, signifying nothing. Because 'nothing' is the change they have bee paid to deliver on immigration, and that is what both sides are doing.
6
In life, the general rule is to "follow the money" to find the root cause of things; in politics, it is "follow the voting pool". Let's be honest, Obama has little to no interest in helping anyone but himself and his very liberal agenda of an all powerful govt that increases in size and keeps his "followers" in power. However, the tides of the American voters is turning against him, his agenda and his flock as evidenced by the states' turns towards conservatism and its core principle of limited govt and self determination. So, what can he do? He can work feverishly to find a large block of new voters - who might that be? Millions of illegal immigrants. Plain and simple. This is not about helping them so much as helping to continue to perpetuate the failed notion of communism (at its core) - yes, I said it. The idea of distributing wealth across the population is communist at its core; and that is exactly his number two objective - increase voting population with a new, sympathetic crowd, and then continue to "take from the rich" and give to the "less fortunate"; and thus his cycle of staying in power is cyclical and self perpetuating. I am sure that this will draw sickly sarcasm from the usual suspects, I just hope that a slight majority of our voting populous can see this in time prior to '16 as anyone who can see clearly and studies history knows that the idea of communism as a governing precept has failed every time.
4
NYT is so frighteningly tyrannical here. Democracy failed to get them the immigration policy they wanted so the President suspended the law itself. George Stephanopolos made a good point. Could a Republican president sign and executive order not to collect capital gains taxes without penalty during his term? No. It's the law. And if one did the NYT would be apoplectic.
Immigration control enforcement is already weak anyway.
Immigration control enforcement is already weak anyway.
16
Wouldn't it be easier to demand that the existing law be followed?
It is not a perfect law, but when it is not followed as directed by the USAG and President, what can one come to expect?
Inflows of tens of thousands of illegals. As with the recent opening of the gates that was misunderstood and brought in nearly 100,000 illegal kids.
The law exists: follow it.
If someone is here illegally: deport them.
If there is legal reason for being here: political asylum, or other reasons such as victims of abuse or some such thing: give those all the compassion we as Americans have.
But break the law; stay past your allowed time, and out you go. Period. Come here illegally: out you go. Period.
Why is this president so bent on making his own laws? And, not allowing congress, dysfunctional as it is, elected by the people, ... well, congress still is the maker of laws, is it not?
Mr. President, do your job, and stop making your own rules about following laws by diktat.
We are a country of laws. I break the law and I am held accountable. According to this latest policy diktat, Illegals are in effect given a free pass.
Not in a democracy. Period!
If the President does not want to negotiate with congress to make laws (yes, democracy is messy) and go around them make his own rules, which laws to follow and which to break, he can always go to the Russia or some silly Banana republic to do that.
America is a country of laws.
If the law needs fixing, fix the law.
It is not a perfect law, but when it is not followed as directed by the USAG and President, what can one come to expect?
Inflows of tens of thousands of illegals. As with the recent opening of the gates that was misunderstood and brought in nearly 100,000 illegal kids.
The law exists: follow it.
If someone is here illegally: deport them.
If there is legal reason for being here: political asylum, or other reasons such as victims of abuse or some such thing: give those all the compassion we as Americans have.
But break the law; stay past your allowed time, and out you go. Period. Come here illegally: out you go. Period.
Why is this president so bent on making his own laws? And, not allowing congress, dysfunctional as it is, elected by the people, ... well, congress still is the maker of laws, is it not?
Mr. President, do your job, and stop making your own rules about following laws by diktat.
We are a country of laws. I break the law and I am held accountable. According to this latest policy diktat, Illegals are in effect given a free pass.
Not in a democracy. Period!
If the President does not want to negotiate with congress to make laws (yes, democracy is messy) and go around them make his own rules, which laws to follow and which to break, he can always go to the Russia or some silly Banana republic to do that.
America is a country of laws.
If the law needs fixing, fix the law.
16
A Judge’s Assault on Immigration ?
Really ?
The judge stopped Obama's assault on existing immigration law and USA constitution .
A law is made by the Congress and not by Obama's phone and pen .
It has been a high-time to stop Obaama's lawlessness !
Kudos to that patriotic judge !
Really ?
The judge stopped Obama's assault on existing immigration law and USA constitution .
A law is made by the Congress and not by Obama's phone and pen .
It has been a high-time to stop Obaama's lawlessness !
Kudos to that patriotic judge !
12
Clearly, Republicans prefer to do nothing about our immigration problems and go on pretending there are not 12 million people living in the shadows.
2
Think about the costs associated with Obama's desire to legalize more than 5 million illegal aliens. Almost all of the costs will be borne by the states, including welfare, unemployment payments and healthcare. This is the Democrat way. Institute highly unpopular edicts by executive action, and then dump the costs of same on the states, without any assistance from the federal government. Obama plays this game over and over. When will American taxpayers catch on to this guy?
7
I find it interesting that one judge who swings against the liberal elite, gets branded and picked apart as conservative, republican... The liberal destroy, discredit machine is strong, and one sided. The reality here thought, is President Obama tried to do something that has never been done before, meaning it is ripe for judicial interpretation. Even a San Francisco judge would have to do some interesting gymnastics to support this Presidential overreach... The judges job is to put the emotional issue aside and see if this is a true Presidential power in a Government with checks and balances
9
Better titled: The curbing a Presidential Hubris
7
Judge Hanen used as his basis for granting his injunction the argument that Texas would be required to "spend scarce resources providing...driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants." Huh? Sounds like he saying Texas will be required to provide these licenses at no charge, provided the applicant is "undocumented." Hardly the case here, although tea partiers will buy it as gospel truth.
To my mind, the only people in this country with any real skin in the game of illegal entry are those who can point to Native American ancestors in their family tree. I have no proof, but I think it quite likely that the vast majority of those bellowing loudest about immigration fail this simple test. On the other hand, the vast majority of those coming across the border with Mexico are the descendants of peoples who inhabited this continent for millenia before the white man introduced "borders."
To my mind, the only people in this country with any real skin in the game of illegal entry are those who can point to Native American ancestors in their family tree. I have no proof, but I think it quite likely that the vast majority of those bellowing loudest about immigration fail this simple test. On the other hand, the vast majority of those coming across the border with Mexico are the descendants of peoples who inhabited this continent for millenia before the white man introduced "borders."
3
The article, predictably, ignores the fundamental issues. The nation functions based on laws and the constitution, not the to and fro the moment by moment social sentiment.
Whether it makes economic sense is irrelevant (it doesn't). Whether congress is obstructive is irrelevant. Whether Obama was unsuccessful whining and stamping his feet irrelevant. Whether children brought into the US facing tough choices is emotionally palatable is irrelevant. The job of a judge is not to create new laws, respond to social pressure or manage political gridlock. It is to enforce the laws and the constitution. Without question, Hanen did that. Whether you agree with those laws, or that constitution, is quite a separate issue.
Obama does not respect the laws, or the constitution. He does not feel that he needs to. The self-proclaimed post partisan president (who statistically by congressional voting is the most partisan president in history), has been stopped. This is a feature, not a bug.
Whether it makes economic sense is irrelevant (it doesn't). Whether congress is obstructive is irrelevant. Whether Obama was unsuccessful whining and stamping his feet irrelevant. Whether children brought into the US facing tough choices is emotionally palatable is irrelevant. The job of a judge is not to create new laws, respond to social pressure or manage political gridlock. It is to enforce the laws and the constitution. Without question, Hanen did that. Whether you agree with those laws, or that constitution, is quite a separate issue.
Obama does not respect the laws, or the constitution. He does not feel that he needs to. The self-proclaimed post partisan president (who statistically by congressional voting is the most partisan president in history), has been stopped. This is a feature, not a bug.
14
Is it too much to ask that the editorial board state the situation accurately in the title of it's opinion piece? It should read, "A Judge's Assault on ILLEGAL Immigration". It makes a difference. There are many of us whose feelings on this are a lot more nuanced than you give us credit for. Most of us who have a problem with illegal immigration are decidedly NOT anti-immigrant and resent it when the issue is framed that way. There are so many possible solutions to this problem but it would take compromise from both sides. And NO...the senate bill was not a compromise. It was a give away on all fronts, increasing legal immigration to two million a year, increasing work permits and putting most of those here illegally on a path to citizenship with very little required of them compared to what people entering legally have to go through. My idea of a compromise would be to draw a line in the sand and allow everyone here to stay in exchange for the following: end birthright citizenship, end chain migration except for immediate family members under a certain age, make E-Verify mandatory and, last but not least, declare a moratorium on green cards for those countries that have most contributed to the problem. The length of the moratorium dependent on how many people came over illegally over a given period of time. Just a thought...
18
Want to get rid of illegals without having to spend billions on deportations? Fine employers $1,000,000 per illegal alien that they employ and they will self-deport.
Americans are against amnesty, period.
Americans are against amnesty, period.
8
Sigh.
They are not "immigrants without papers." The status of being an immigrant is defined in federal law.
They are "illegal aliens". Their presence here is itself a violation of the law that makes them ineligible for admission.
Stop obfuscating reality with political correctness.
I'm preaching to the wind.
They are not "immigrants without papers." The status of being an immigrant is defined in federal law.
They are "illegal aliens". Their presence here is itself a violation of the law that makes them ineligible for admission.
Stop obfuscating reality with political correctness.
I'm preaching to the wind.
15
Boy oh boy, how about them activist judges!
"to protect millions of undocumented immigrants" How about protecting REAL AMERICANS from these illegals who are bringing in crime, disease, straining our infrastructure, staining our schools, taking public assistance, taking jobs, etc. etc.
10
The judge was correct. The Times editorial panel should think this through. If executive orders can be used to invalidate legislation that a particular president does not like, those laws which liberals hold dear can be repealed with the stroke of the pen and a declaration: "This law isn't working."
Repubicans and Democrats enacted comprehensive immigration reform in 1986. There is your solution. The law is in place, how about enforcing it?
Refusing to enforce the law, and then saying that the law doesn't work, is an insult to United States citizens.
Repubicans and Democrats enacted comprehensive immigration reform in 1986. There is your solution. The law is in place, how about enforcing it?
Refusing to enforce the law, and then saying that the law doesn't work, is an insult to United States citizens.
13
Our immigration system is akin to prohibition or the "War on Drugs," well meaning but totally underfunded and well impossible to enforce in the way some people want in this country.
The President of the US has discretion in enforcing our immigration policies for one main reason and this has been Constitutionally tested. Funding! Congress knows full well that it does not provide even one-tenth the necessary funding to go after ever single unauthorized immigrant in this country. It is very impractical to wrench 7 to 12 million people from our society and from their families without a great deal of heartache and trampling on the constitutional rights of actual citizens and the immigrants themselves. (YES, even unauthorized people have rights in this country). Similarly Police dont go after every single offender. There just arent enough resources to go after every single person who goes even 1 mile over the speed limit. That is why Police set priorities for people who go 10 over or 20 over the speed limit.
We all try to follow the law as much as we can. But lets be realistic, you dont have to go back to prohibition times to find good, hard-working people who routinely break laws. If you've never speeded a day in your life, had an underage beer or have been completely faithful in telling the IRS every last dollar that you earned last year (including the 5 bucks you found on the ground) then you might have a case for your "holier than thou" schtick but I doubt it.
The President of the US has discretion in enforcing our immigration policies for one main reason and this has been Constitutionally tested. Funding! Congress knows full well that it does not provide even one-tenth the necessary funding to go after ever single unauthorized immigrant in this country. It is very impractical to wrench 7 to 12 million people from our society and from their families without a great deal of heartache and trampling on the constitutional rights of actual citizens and the immigrants themselves. (YES, even unauthorized people have rights in this country). Similarly Police dont go after every single offender. There just arent enough resources to go after every single person who goes even 1 mile over the speed limit. That is why Police set priorities for people who go 10 over or 20 over the speed limit.
We all try to follow the law as much as we can. But lets be realistic, you dont have to go back to prohibition times to find good, hard-working people who routinely break laws. If you've never speeded a day in your life, had an underage beer or have been completely faithful in telling the IRS every last dollar that you earned last year (including the 5 bucks you found on the ground) then you might have a case for your "holier than thou" schtick but I doubt it.
There is a big difference between not prosecuting somebody, and explicitly making their activities legal.
Additionally providing social security numbers to 4mm illegal immigrants went light years beyond a decision not to deport them. That was flat out executive fiat, and nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion.
Additionally providing social security numbers to 4mm illegal immigrants went light years beyond a decision not to deport them. That was flat out executive fiat, and nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion.
7
The feds have chosen to not go after people who smoke medical marijuana even though federal law still prohibits it. If we adhere to stupid laws all the way to the hilt then we can never evolve as a country.
NYT Editorial Board, please be very careful about pretending to be Constitutional scholars: "even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education."
Unlike Obamacare or some of the other things you champion, the Constitution of the United States is short enough for normal people to read, and it doesn't mention education. Unless you wish to devalue the Times to the level of some internet blog--or, heaven forbid, CNN--you have to check your facts, particularly the ones which are easy to check.
Unlike Obamacare or some of the other things you champion, the Constitution of the United States is short enough for normal people to read, and it doesn't mention education. Unless you wish to devalue the Times to the level of some internet blog--or, heaven forbid, CNN--you have to check your facts, particularly the ones which are easy to check.
16
We massacred Indians for this land and dare to claim that people who want to come here for opportunity illegal.
2
Judge Hanen wrote, "The crux of the states’ claim is that the defendants violated the Constitution by enacting their own law without going through the proper legislative or administrative channels." The President confirmed this, when he said in November, "‘I just took an action to change the law."
We all saw it happening. What's the argument?
We all saw it happening. What's the argument?
6
The republicans keep insisting that the border must be 'secure,as a requirement for any positive participation on/from their side.What does that mean,secure border,positive participation?Nothing,because republicans see no point in either scenario.The border will Never,be 'secure, in their eyes.So why 'participate.The potentially new citizens are likely to vote democrat,so the republican disincentive is large.Americans aren't dumb.
1
Have one forgotten that this president is black? Yes, that is exactly why there is absolutely nothing in the whole world that the current President could do to please the GOP - the 'no' party. As with everything else the President does or proposes the Republicans say 'no.' What can they do, what can they propose? Nothing. This do-nothing party exists for one reason only, to attempt to thwart in every way possible every thing that President Obama has done, whether it is a health care, or an immigration reform.
1
@ Jor-El
And he slaps down the race card with a resounding bang!
And he slaps down the race card with a resounding bang!
6
Oh look the Republicans went Judge shopping and finally found one who gave them the verdict they wanted. Lord love America the best justice money can but
1
Apparently the Constitutional scholars at the NYT are unaware that Congress exercising ITS discretion NOT to do something does not mean the President has carte blanche to exceed his constitutional authority, so let's stop this nonesense of pretending that the fact that Congress has not capitulated to what the a President wants is a legitimate defense for executive violation of separation of powers.
Second, the injunction was very clear in indicating what was, and was not covered by "prosecutorial discretion". A prosecuter (or the executive) can only exercise discretion to prosecute or not, they cannot go beyond that and put into place any policies or regulations that have the effect of legitimizing the nonetheless illegal actions (he can ignore the fact that someone is hear illegally, he cannot bestow upon them benefits and statuses -- Social Security numbers, work permits, etc... -- that are by law limited to those who are here legally.
Then the issue of standing comes into play. The 26 states have clear standing because the President's unconstitutional actions will create a financial burden for them.
The court was absolutely correct.
Second, the injunction was very clear in indicating what was, and was not covered by "prosecutorial discretion". A prosecuter (or the executive) can only exercise discretion to prosecute or not, they cannot go beyond that and put into place any policies or regulations that have the effect of legitimizing the nonetheless illegal actions (he can ignore the fact that someone is hear illegally, he cannot bestow upon them benefits and statuses -- Social Security numbers, work permits, etc... -- that are by law limited to those who are here legally.
Then the issue of standing comes into play. The 26 states have clear standing because the President's unconstitutional actions will create a financial burden for them.
The court was absolutely correct.
10
In addition to their presidential line up of Baby Face Nelson, Billy the Kid, Mat Dilinger, Bugsy Segal, Al Capone, and the ever calm and intellectual Meyer Lansky wanna be, the Republicans have taken over the justice system.
Wo be us!
Wo be us!
1
Judge Hanen's decision was taken word for word from Republican talking points. But no one - not the Judge, not the Republicans or Democrats - not this paper - have the guts to use the "d" word - deportation. The opposite of amnesty, the opposite of providing a path to citizenship, is deportation. There is no in between. This NY Times and the Democrats need to be frank. The goal of Judge Hanen and and the Republican is to deport all undocumented aliens no matter who they are, how they got here or what contributions they have made or could make to America.
1
First, what you wrote ("Judge Hanen's decision was taken word for word from Republican talking points") is simply untrue. By making that statement, you demonstrate that you did not actually read the decision.
Second, even if your statement were true, I am pretty certain that your problem is not with judges using talking pints in general, but rather with talking points you disagree with. If the judge had used "Democratic talking points" to justify a contrary decision, I am sure you'd be just fine with that.
Second, even if your statement were true, I am pretty certain that your problem is not with judges using talking pints in general, but rather with talking points you disagree with. If the judge had used "Democratic talking points" to justify a contrary decision, I am sure you'd be just fine with that.
1
#1 - first sentence; change 'undocumented immigrants' to 'illegal aliens'. The truth matters. The same truth that prevents the president from saying "Islamic Terrorism". Stop using words as the tools of dishonest minds. These words are meant to cover up the fact that government is not being fair. The intent of the president's action was never intended to help the illegal immigrants. The intent and sole emphasis of this rule was to run over best intentions of the American citizens who do want to see fair reforms in the welfare of illegal aliens. But its dangerous to lie to us continually by using terms like 'undocumented immigrant', 'man-caused-disasters', 'violent extremism'. Its dangerous because not everyone is going to continue to put up with this behavior being forced upon us.
6
Might want to read Judge Hanen's ruling. A careful reading of it might even surprise the NYT.
Judge Hanen's ruling did NOT mention "prosecutorial discretion" but rather the arbitrary granting of "citizenship" and the rights therein accrued and the costs imposed on the various states.
This is going to be VERY hard for the 5th Circuit to overturn legally on appeal.
Once again, Obama ignored the Constitution and once again - what is this, the 54th time - got slapped down by the courts.
He desperately needs a new AG.
Judge Hanen's ruling did NOT mention "prosecutorial discretion" but rather the arbitrary granting of "citizenship" and the rights therein accrued and the costs imposed on the various states.
This is going to be VERY hard for the 5th Circuit to overturn legally on appeal.
Once again, Obama ignored the Constitution and once again - what is this, the 54th time - got slapped down by the courts.
He desperately needs a new AG.
10
It should be said that the judges decision will not effect a single legal immigrant. I am tired of the distinction not being made. I am for open borders, but only if the law is changed.
5
This ruling fits perfectly with the state of politics in Texas as led by Gov. Perry/ Abbot and Lt. Gov Patrick:
1) Run for office by terrifying the people of the state about the dangerous illegals crossing the border and infiltrating the state.
2) Blame the Obama Administration for not doing anything about it and send the Texas National Guard (who have no authority to stop or arrest illegals) to the Texas Border at the cost of millions of dollars so you can pretend you are doing something about the problem.
3) When the President takes executive action --because the Reps in the House wont bring an immigration bill to a vote -- to direct our limited resources to stopping the dangerous illegals from crossing the border and to stop looking for hardworking people looking for opportunity, complain that he is costing the state money and violating the Constitution.
4) Return to saying the President isn't doing anything to protect the border and double down on the useless gesture of sending the Texas National Guard to the border.
Classic Republican hypocrisy and misdirection and unfortunately it works.
The President's plan allows us to use our resources to stop new and potentially dangerous illegals from crossing the border. Isn't that the GOP's goal?
If Congress had done its job, the President wouldn't have felt compelled to take what will prove to be a Constitutional action. The GOP has been wrong about everything else for the last 6 years, why would they be right about this?
1) Run for office by terrifying the people of the state about the dangerous illegals crossing the border and infiltrating the state.
2) Blame the Obama Administration for not doing anything about it and send the Texas National Guard (who have no authority to stop or arrest illegals) to the Texas Border at the cost of millions of dollars so you can pretend you are doing something about the problem.
3) When the President takes executive action --because the Reps in the House wont bring an immigration bill to a vote -- to direct our limited resources to stopping the dangerous illegals from crossing the border and to stop looking for hardworking people looking for opportunity, complain that he is costing the state money and violating the Constitution.
4) Return to saying the President isn't doing anything to protect the border and double down on the useless gesture of sending the Texas National Guard to the border.
Classic Republican hypocrisy and misdirection and unfortunately it works.
The President's plan allows us to use our resources to stop new and potentially dangerous illegals from crossing the border. Isn't that the GOP's goal?
If Congress had done its job, the President wouldn't have felt compelled to take what will prove to be a Constitutional action. The GOP has been wrong about everything else for the last 6 years, why would they be right about this?
2
The New York Times plays the role of fair-weather advocate for the rule of law, again. In this case, the president went and changed current immigration law, a power he does not have, and it was challenged. The president will lose this case on the legal merits. He doesn't have the power to grant privileges (e.g., welfare, work permits) to illegal immigrants who are not already granted such privileges or otherwise recognized by acts of Congress. So shame on you, Mr. President.
But give him credit for knowing which buttons to push. I have no doubt that while considering his actions beforehand, the president and his "advisors" realized success was a long shot. But the real goal was to curry favor among Hispanic voters, who along with his base the president counts on to be as cavalier toward lawfulness as he is.
But give him credit for knowing which buttons to push. I have no doubt that while considering his actions beforehand, the president and his "advisors" realized success was a long shot. But the real goal was to curry favor among Hispanic voters, who along with his base the president counts on to be as cavalier toward lawfulness as he is.
11
Some like to believe that the Judiciary, though partisan, is not nearly as dysfunctionally and destructively partisan as the Congress.
Actually, it was the Judiciary, at its most "august" level, which began it all --- see Bush v. Gore. The only bright side of that whole sordid case was Al Gore's concession speech (now forgotten) which was as eloquent, as open-hearted and as thoughtful as any political speech since delivered (the only comparable speeches I can think of were two by Obama, one of the '04 Democratic convention and the other when he spoke about race prior to his first election).
And so we continue to sink lower in our tribal warfare now goaded on not just by politicians and the panderers in the media but by our "esteemed" Judges.
Actually, it was the Judiciary, at its most "august" level, which began it all --- see Bush v. Gore. The only bright side of that whole sordid case was Al Gore's concession speech (now forgotten) which was as eloquent, as open-hearted and as thoughtful as any political speech since delivered (the only comparable speeches I can think of were two by Obama, one of the '04 Democratic convention and the other when he spoke about race prior to his first election).
And so we continue to sink lower in our tribal warfare now goaded on not just by politicians and the panderers in the media but by our "esteemed" Judges.
2
Under the US Constitution which level of government certifies the Electors? It is the state government. Florida state government cerified the Bush electors. I don't understand why anyone would think the federal courts had any reason to be involved. We have had times where no election was held, the state just chose the electors.
The real problem we have is that people don't know the constitution.
The real problem we have is that people don't know the constitution.
2
Prosecutorial discretion is not plenary legislative power. That's why we have Congress, and three co-equal branches of government. It is rare to get a federal judge to enjoin. Even moreso for a federal judge to enjoin an executive action by a sitting president. The 123 page opinion by Judge Hanen is a treatise in Constitutional Law and jurisprudence and a harbinger of the demise of executive overreach.
9
"Undocumented" means "illegal" no matter how you spell or spin it.
9
There is virtually no law in this judge's partisan Republican ruling. If he wants to mouth off about immigration policy he should resign from the bench and run for Congress. Otherwise, he needs to mind his judicial p's and q's and show some of the judicial restraint Republicans like him are always screaming for. He is way out of line and an appeals court somewhere needs to slap him down.
1
YET, if he had ruled the same way and were a (D) he could stay, correct?
2
Finally, someone stands up for the rights of actual American citizens. Bravo, Judge Hanen.
11
With a birth rate of essentially zero, the U.S. is desperate for immigrant labor whether they come here legally or illegally.
Every GOP presidential candidate in recent memory, except Romney, had a path to citizenship in his platform.
Every GOP presidential candidate in recent memory, except Romney, had a path to citizenship in his platform.
That's a good point, so if we want to stop urban sprawl, the easiest way is to slam the door shut on all immigrants. Of course, I don't expect to hear environmentalists voice their belief that there are already too many humans in the US.
1
Here in the land of the free. . .politics and $$$ will always take precedence over humanity. How can a judge represent justice?
1
How can a judge represent justice?
By taking an oath and administering it.
That's exactly what happened when Judge Hanen stepped in, stood up and spoke out for our nation of laws.
By taking an oath and administering it.
That's exactly what happened when Judge Hanen stepped in, stood up and spoke out for our nation of laws.
7
I bet the ancestors of the Native Americans wish they had merely passed an immigration law. Think how things would be for them if when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, the English at Jamestown, and the Spanish in Florida, that they had been informed that they had not completed the appropriate paperwork, and thus should return to Europe. No doubt this would have occurred, and human history would be so different.
1
To speak of Native Americans as if they ever formed a nation is nonsense.
Each Amerindian tribe sought to impose tribal boundaries that were widely ignored by neighboring tribes. Had they coalesced into a nation before the arrival of the Europeans, they might have imposed and enforced immigration restrictions to protect their land and culture. The Europeans arrived a few centuries too early for them. However, their experiences does illustrated the dangers of unrestricted immigration.
Each Amerindian tribe sought to impose tribal boundaries that were widely ignored by neighboring tribes. Had they coalesced into a nation before the arrival of the Europeans, they might have imposed and enforced immigration restrictions to protect their land and culture. The Europeans arrived a few centuries too early for them. However, their experiences does illustrated the dangers of unrestricted immigration.
6
Actually, if we were like normal humans we would kill the people who land on our shores uninvited, like the Indians tried to do, but lost.
1
Judge Hanen's ruling has nothing to do with the oft-conjured, invisible Republican boogeyman sitting in the dark at a round table with blood-sipping inhumane demon spirits. It has everything to do with a petulant president, who grabs his pen and phone when he disagrees with the sovereign.
So Congress disagrees with Mr. Obama on immigration, healthcare reform or any issue that comes along. Does a political tête-à-tête give Obama the constitutional authority to make his own laws by fiat? According to Judge Hanen, and the text of our founding document, it does not.
I respectfully concur.
So Congress disagrees with Mr. Obama on immigration, healthcare reform or any issue that comes along. Does a political tête-à-tête give Obama the constitutional authority to make his own laws by fiat? According to Judge Hanen, and the text of our founding document, it does not.
I respectfully concur.
10
The judge issued a narrow decision based on procedural law to give himself plenty of time to address the more complex issues of constitutional law. Obama is going down on this one as he should. Obama has been slapped down all 13 times his lawsuits have gone to the supreme court, all decisions have been 9 - 0. His AG has not done him any favors by being a yes man and it sounds like Loretta Lynch will be no better.
8
In America laws are supposed by be made by Congress, not by a president who issues them like royal decrees against the will of the people. Obama has broken the rule of law and shredded the US Constitution. He personally described exactly what he later did as the act of a "king" or "dictator." That was one of the only true things he ever said on this issue.
He now claims to use "prosecutorial discretion" to declare that millions of illegals may stay in the United States and the abrogate his responsibility to enforce the laws. Prosecutorial discretions applies to individual cases individually considered, not to massive, sweeping declarations of illegal policy. The Constitution clearly states in Article 2 that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Obama breaks the Constitution, his oath of office and federal laws. He assumes the crown of a dictator/king.
He substitutes his personal wishes for existing legislation because they fit his political aims--to pollute American culture and foster massive illegal voting by people who think they owe HIM something for the welfare, tax refunds ("earned" income), and entitlements they will get as a result of his illegal actions.
Thank heavens a judge somewhere has the courage to rule that the president is not above the law, a principle Democrats now broadly repudiate.
He now claims to use "prosecutorial discretion" to declare that millions of illegals may stay in the United States and the abrogate his responsibility to enforce the laws. Prosecutorial discretions applies to individual cases individually considered, not to massive, sweeping declarations of illegal policy. The Constitution clearly states in Article 2 that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Obama breaks the Constitution, his oath of office and federal laws. He assumes the crown of a dictator/king.
He substitutes his personal wishes for existing legislation because they fit his political aims--to pollute American culture and foster massive illegal voting by people who think they owe HIM something for the welfare, tax refunds ("earned" income), and entitlements they will get as a result of his illegal actions.
Thank heavens a judge somewhere has the courage to rule that the president is not above the law, a principle Democrats now broadly repudiate.
10
I've visited Brownsville several times. Without illegal immigration, plus a daily flood of Mexicans commuting across the Rio Grande, it would be a brackish backwater instead of the thriving community that it is.
Sad irony that Judge Hanen presides there.
Sad irony that Judge Hanen presides there.
2
I will resist the temptation (I am a lawyer, after all) to delve into the clear and painstakingly precise legal doctrines and case law Judge Andrew Hanen used to grant a slam-dunk but rare injunction against a sitting U.S. President. Instead I will make an observation.
When I was in law school, a professor used the old adage "...if the law is in your favor, pound the law into them...if the facts are, pound the facts...if neither are in your favor, just pound the table..."
That is the Obama WH and liberal response to the injunction blocking what is by all accounts, including as a prong of the injunction, a winning argument by the 26 states suing over this illegal Constitutional overreach.
Like the upcoming showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration is on shaky legal ground, so they are attempting to divert attention away from the law and to human interest, strawman sob stories. By attempting a humanitarian meme to mask the illegality of Obama's actions, the executive amnesty attempt is made to look even more nefarious.
I would like to hear a compelling legal argument for why Obama's actions should be allowed to usurp the laws on the books and clearly enumerated plenary power of Congress under Article I, Sect VIII to make laws. I have a feeling the Fifth Circuit does as well.
When I was in law school, a professor used the old adage "...if the law is in your favor, pound the law into them...if the facts are, pound the facts...if neither are in your favor, just pound the table..."
That is the Obama WH and liberal response to the injunction blocking what is by all accounts, including as a prong of the injunction, a winning argument by the 26 states suing over this illegal Constitutional overreach.
Like the upcoming showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration is on shaky legal ground, so they are attempting to divert attention away from the law and to human interest, strawman sob stories. By attempting a humanitarian meme to mask the illegality of Obama's actions, the executive amnesty attempt is made to look even more nefarious.
I would like to hear a compelling legal argument for why Obama's actions should be allowed to usurp the laws on the books and clearly enumerated plenary power of Congress under Article I, Sect VIII to make laws. I have a feeling the Fifth Circuit does as well.
16
Well said. Governing hinges on a lot of "gentlemen's agreements" and accepted traditions and protocols. Obama has shredded many and I am not sure how much lasting damage to how we govern, he has done. He is a product of his upbringing.
3
Or lack thereof in my opinion.
Barack Obama will not sit down with anyone he thinks is not a blindly loyal sycophant and negotiate a deal. Can you imagine legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the 13th amendment being worked out if those Presidents were stubborn, arrogant delusional, incompetent jerks like Obama?
Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill.
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich.
LBJ worked with Republicans and Southern Democrats to get the Civil Rights Act passed.
Who has Obama partnered with in good faith and compromise, willing to let the GOP take credit if need be? Nobody.
Barack Obama will not sit down with anyone he thinks is not a blindly loyal sycophant and negotiate a deal. Can you imagine legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the 13th amendment being worked out if those Presidents were stubborn, arrogant delusional, incompetent jerks like Obama?
Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill.
Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich.
LBJ worked with Republicans and Southern Democrats to get the Civil Rights Act passed.
Who has Obama partnered with in good faith and compromise, willing to let the GOP take credit if need be? Nobody.
3
What needs to be done to convince Republicans to leave their God out of the public sphere? When a federal judge describes a legal issue before him as a "biblical flood," one questions his grasp of the constitution. Christianists assert that there is a "war on Christianity," when, in reality, they fight in every way imaginable to have their religious views inserted where they clearly do not belong. For the love of God, when will they stop?
2
It would be good to know what are Republican's specific authentic views about immigration both in favor of or contrary to the Obama administration's. However, it's hard to separate the "wheat from the chaff;" or authentic Republican views from their dyed in the wool anti-Obama habit and addiction. And worse still, as a consequence of being in constant opposition to Obama--as if there's only one cloned Republican brain everyone shares--they themselves have probably lost perspective regarding what each Republican individual member of congress truly believes. As a result, debate that should be an integral part of our democratic process; debate that exposes a variety of views and solutions to be pondered is missing in action; is AWOL. And that's a terrible loss that's hampering healing of our country's wounds and meeting our country's needs including what's the best overall strategy for us and our country regarding immigration.
3
Republicans have expressed their views to Obama on immigration.
1) Enforce the border first and enforce our laws by deporting new illegals.
2) Allow existing illegals to stay.
Given his discretion to generally enforce only the laws he like and even re-write the ones he really does not like, Republicans have been understandably reticent to allow #2 with only a promise of #1. They want #1 first.
1) Enforce the border first and enforce our laws by deporting new illegals.
2) Allow existing illegals to stay.
Given his discretion to generally enforce only the laws he like and even re-write the ones he really does not like, Republicans have been understandably reticent to allow #2 with only a promise of #1. They want #1 first.
2
The Editorial Board blames the judge, not the president who admitted 22 times that the very action is un-Constitutional.
7
but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.
The solution is easy: simply enforce the laws already in place! And, like most other countries, control one's own borders. What's so hard about that?
The solution is easy: simply enforce the laws already in place! And, like most other countries, control one's own borders. What's so hard about that?
6
The President has the discretion not to prosecute illegal aliens. However, he does not have the discretion to provide work permits, social security numbers, welfare benefits, tax refunds (for taxes never paid), etc. to people who reside in the United States illegally. Only Congress has the authority to do so under current law. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will clearly so rule so future presidents do not attempt to change our laws.
17
This pointless rage wins elections. What the Republicans intend to do is build a giant fence and deport every illegal immigrant it can get hands on. What will that accomplish? Probably very little. But Judge Hanen's contention that cost of illegal immigrants is onerous on the community will come true with a vengeance.
2
Pointless rage = Democrat "War on Women"?
3
Smart liberals will be terrified by the implications of this program. If this stands, a GOP president will have scary precedent to do the same in the future.
Imagine Pres. GOP saying "America's anti-oil and gas regs, high business and capital gains tax rates are hurting the economy and job growth, and Dems in Congress are blocking a solution. Where Congress won't act, I will. So I've ordered prioritized enforcement. EPA may NOT enforce most laws relating to oil and gas extraction and grant immunity from enforcement for 3 more years. The IRS will issue Automatic Settlements of all business and personal tax returns with 50% off the current corp and capital gains rates and may not try to collect the full rates. The DOJ's Civil Rights Div will not enforce anti-gay bias crimes or anti-gay discrimination in the federal work force. Finally, the DOJ won't enforce federal court decisions permitting gay marriage.
That would be horrifying liberals and progressives. But if Obama's actions are legal, as Dems and this paper argue, the steps outlined above would also be legal. Are you sure you want to go down that path?
Be very, very careful what you ask for. Because you may get it..
Imagine Pres. GOP saying "America's anti-oil and gas regs, high business and capital gains tax rates are hurting the economy and job growth, and Dems in Congress are blocking a solution. Where Congress won't act, I will. So I've ordered prioritized enforcement. EPA may NOT enforce most laws relating to oil and gas extraction and grant immunity from enforcement for 3 more years. The IRS will issue Automatic Settlements of all business and personal tax returns with 50% off the current corp and capital gains rates and may not try to collect the full rates. The DOJ's Civil Rights Div will not enforce anti-gay bias crimes or anti-gay discrimination in the federal work force. Finally, the DOJ won't enforce federal court decisions permitting gay marriage.
That would be horrifying liberals and progressives. But if Obama's actions are legal, as Dems and this paper argue, the steps outlined above would also be legal. Are you sure you want to go down that path?
Be very, very careful what you ask for. Because you may get it..
15
I don't believe Democrats think ahead. I really don't. Its whatever is right in front of them that matters.
Don't like a shooting? Pass a law. Don't like poverty? Pass a law. Don't like oil? Pass a law.
Like illegal immigration? Don't enforce a law.
Don't like a shooting? Pass a law. Don't like poverty? Pass a law. Don't like oil? Pass a law.
Like illegal immigration? Don't enforce a law.
2
"The share of Americans who are dissatisfied and want more immigration (7%) was unchanged from 2014."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-levels.aspx
---
“Would you support or oppose Congress passing new legislation that strengthen the rules making it illegal for businesses in the U.S. to hire illegal immigrants?”
Support for this was overwhelming, 71–21, far greater than the other questions (strongly support/oppose was 45 percent to 9 percent).
http://www.paragoninsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150103-PI_Exec...
---
"As for immigration, the new survey indicates three-quarters of Americans support the contentious Arizona law that allows police to arrest or detain suspected illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/08/cnn-poll-americans-weigh...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/dissatisfied-immigration-levels.aspx
---
“Would you support or oppose Congress passing new legislation that strengthen the rules making it illegal for businesses in the U.S. to hire illegal immigrants?”
Support for this was overwhelming, 71–21, far greater than the other questions (strongly support/oppose was 45 percent to 9 percent).
http://www.paragoninsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150103-PI_Exec...
---
"As for immigration, the new survey indicates three-quarters of Americans support the contentious Arizona law that allows police to arrest or detain suspected illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/08/cnn-poll-americans-weigh...
7
Judge Hanen's injunction was NOT an assault on immigration; it was a temporary halt to Obama's assault on the U. S. Constitution.
Obama's tyrannical, unconstitutional actions have nothing to do with relief for illegal immigrants. His amnesty for several million trespassers was aimed directly at adding enough Democrat voters to the electorate to keep his socialist party in power forever.
And make no mistake about it: Those illegals WOULD be voting in 2016, and in this almost 50/50 polarized nation would very likely provide the votes to tip a presidential election in favor of Democrats.
Obama's tyrannical, unconstitutional actions have nothing to do with relief for illegal immigrants. His amnesty for several million trespassers was aimed directly at adding enough Democrat voters to the electorate to keep his socialist party in power forever.
And make no mistake about it: Those illegals WOULD be voting in 2016, and in this almost 50/50 polarized nation would very likely provide the votes to tip a presidential election in favor of Democrats.
11
Obama clearly overstepped with his executive order. The motives, humane as they are, are irrelevant. Laws in our country are made by the legislative branch not the executive branch. Obama's refusal to to deport those here illegally is a violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws in our country.
It is plausible that small exceptions could be made to enforcing the law, as other President's have done. Conferring legal status on 4 million illegals, and further granting them social security numbers, however was beyond reasonable. A judge appropriately put a hold on this until a higher court could opine.
This complaint of partisanship by the judge is laughable. Obama clearly and knowingly abused his power. The status quo should be that the law is stayed until the SCOTUS can rule on it. Conferring social security numbers on all these immigrants prior to the SCOTUS ruling would have been ludicrous.
It is plausible that small exceptions could be made to enforcing the law, as other President's have done. Conferring legal status on 4 million illegals, and further granting them social security numbers, however was beyond reasonable. A judge appropriately put a hold on this until a higher court could opine.
This complaint of partisanship by the judge is laughable. Obama clearly and knowingly abused his power. The status quo should be that the law is stayed until the SCOTUS can rule on it. Conferring social security numbers on all these immigrants prior to the SCOTUS ruling would have been ludicrous.
15
You honestly don't know the difference between a law and an executive order, do you? wow.
1
The picture accompanying this editorial shows Obama meeting with 'young immigrants'. Are they 'legal' and young or 'illegal' and young immigrants?
Why is the Times loath to make the distinction between lawfully present immigrants and unlawful ones by using the epithets legal and illegal?
Why?
Why is the Times loath to make the distinction between lawfully present immigrants and unlawful ones by using the epithets legal and illegal?
Why?
15
It's Gawdless Communism, of course. what, you didn't know?
For Republicans this is a xenophobic two-fer. Oppose the not-really-a real-American president AND exclude all those dangerous a aliens.
3
Again I say, the issue is not the executive order mentality. The issue is the rule of law. People who break our laws should not (but we do know otherwise) benefit from the illegal acts they commit. Undocumented aliens who are here illegally, i.e without legal documentation, paperwork, visas, etc., have to leave immediately and then reapply using the legal process we have in place. In fact since they broke the law, they are also ineligible for legal immigration status and blew any chance they may have had. Otherwise this whole thing is a joke and why have a law to begin with. I am sorry this is not a human rights issue, it is one of your DNA at the wrong place at the wrong time. If we allow this farce to move forward by executive fiat, then our government has insulted every American who became a citizen legally and within the process. The only reason the democrats refuse to see this is they want cheap labor and eventually the votes from the Latino groups grateful for this president and the votes from the new illegal/legal amnestied Latino citizens. This whole sham must cease. If it does not then the government has no moral authority to prosecute any illegal actions. There is no one from column A and one from Column B option. No benefits to illegal people, no school for the kids, no welfare, no driver licenses, no medical no any benefits which gives them an excuse to stay. If you are illegal, deportation immediately nonstop to the nearest border. Goodbye!
6
Fine. let's start with the Cubans. good luck with that.
repubs use their ability to appoint judges to appoint partisan hacks instead.
The judiciary was NEVER intended to be a party line vote. It was designed to be independent of political will. That was its' defining feature.
The real problem with our country is that repubs throw sand in the gears of good governance - every chance they get.
The judiciary was NEVER intended to be a party line vote. It was designed to be independent of political will. That was its' defining feature.
The real problem with our country is that repubs throw sand in the gears of good governance - every chance they get.
3
@ Byron
I bet you had no problem with the federal district court judge overturning the gay marriage ban that was supported by 80% of the citizens of that state.
I bet you had no problem with the federal district court judge overturning the gay marriage ban that was supported by 80% of the citizens of that state.
2
You can't "vote away" Constitutional rights.
2
A Judge's Assault on Immigration? Try a Judge's Ruling on ILLEGAL Immigration
10
For decades, open border advocates assured us only a tiny percent of illegal immigrants were criminals. Now the Obama administration tells us that some many are criminals we can only deport those who commit felonies. However, the question arises: How many of our 11 million immigrants have felony convictions? About 8.2 percent of the U.S. population has felony convictions, but let us assume that 10 percent, or 1.1 million illegal immigrants, have felony convictions. ICE deported 438,000 illegal immigrants in 2013 and 315,943 in 2014. So, it should take only a few years to deport our 1.1 million criminal immigrants and return to deporting people merely because they are in the country illegally. About a third of the criminal aliens will already be gone by the time the legal issues ensnarling the deferral process play out and about half will be gone by the time everyone get signed up for the deferrals. So, it looks like the temporary immunity would last illegal immigrants only a year of two. Is it really worthwhile?
1
I adore the cheerful invention of that "let us assume." You know what they say about that word, right?
If the percentage is less than 10 percent, we would simply run out of criminal to deport more quickly. If the percentage is higher, that destroys the argument that illegal immigrants are good for America.
2
Well once again the GOP get to alienate another group of people. They've already lost the women, intellectuals, immigrants as well as people needing SNAP or health care. With the demographics and history against the GOP, hard to believe that party will be around for another 50 years without some big changes. Their shrill fanatical cries are those of a people who see their power slipping away. Oh, how they long for those days when everyone, according to them, new their place.
4
Must be the reason Republicans lost so many House and Senate seats in the mid-terms.
5
How dare a judge base his decision on law. He should be like all the liberal judges and base his decision on FEELINGS!!!!
14
As a Texan, I can only say that our culture and economy would be bland and lethargic without the influence of our Latin American neighbors. And as for the work they do, there is plenty of work for all. I challenge anyone to prove a citizen lost a job to the undocumented parent of a young, U.S. born Latino. I feel less threatened by immigrants, documented or otherwise, than I do by the angry "white" people who hate anything progressive or compassionate unless it lines their pockets.
8
Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to complain about judicial activism in this case while you support it when it suits you on gay marriage, etc?
At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you disagree with the judge on partisan grounds.
We'll know soon enough if the President really did overstep his bounds but it is not for the editorial writers at the NYT to decide.
At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you disagree with the judge on partisan grounds.
We'll know soon enough if the President really did overstep his bounds but it is not for the editorial writers at the NYT to decide.
14
"However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. " So if appellate courts uphold the lower court opinion it is "Republican intransigence" that has stopped an illegal action by the administration. Funny, I has assumed it was the law
8
Wow so many who want to close the borders. No immigration! We should have done that in 1900 4 years after my folks got here. What a great country we would be. What they really mean is only white immigration from northern Europe. Fortress America, what a patriotic concept or just selfishness. As to overreach of executive power all congress need do is to enact a comprehensive immigration law.
Executive action is needed only because Congress refuses to do its job in the hope of political advantage. Let them defund the HSD and shut down the government. The voters in 2016 will know what they will get if they are fool enough to vote for a Republican. Their problem is how to destroy government and get reelected in 2016. They are on the road to political oblivion and the all the plutocrat money will not save them. Just keep following Ted Cruz.
Executive action is needed only because Congress refuses to do its job in the hope of political advantage. Let them defund the HSD and shut down the government. The voters in 2016 will know what they will get if they are fool enough to vote for a Republican. Their problem is how to destroy government and get reelected in 2016. They are on the road to political oblivion and the all the plutocrat money will not save them. Just keep following Ted Cruz.
1
You leave out an important part of the 1900 immigration. if you wanted to come here you had to goto certain places and and wait your turn to be aloud here. elis island ring a bell. You forget that the same republicans who got elected in 2014 were fighting against amnesty for illegals. and they won more seats in congress then the pasy 100 years. But thanks to this judge for knowing the law we can fund dhs now because what we were preventing by defunding this illegal action by white house was the implementation of this illegal amnesty. now with this ruling his action has been stopped and we can fund dhs. and the congress you speak of is the liberal congress dont forget liberal controlled all three branches for 18 months that is how they passed obamacare and couldnt be stopped by republicans so they could have passed immigration reform aswell but failed to do so
1
Those who complain about the President's actions, any of his actions in fact, are themselves unwilling to do anything at all about the problem except point fingers at everyone else. We have neither the money nor the manpower nor the desire to go after the hundreds of thousands of businesses that employ illegals, but it costs nearly nothing to yell at the poor illegal.
The Tea Party is infused with rage from their resentment that anyone should have the nerve to seek out a better life for themselves in any way possible, but they refuse to look at their own fellow citizens who employ (illegally BTW) all these "invaders." And it is so much easier to blame others, the DEms and the President, for not doing something and then blame them when they do.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs who pay for our elections and our politicians are laughing all the way to the bank with the money they don't pay taxes on made from money they inherited or invested. It seems that the entire nature of how Tea Party members (and everyone else) are getting fleeced by the super rich, not the illegal immigrants, totally escapes them. The rest of us want to say to the Tea Party: Put up or shut up. But instead the Tea Party and the money men prefer no law dealing with immigration, preferring instead to simply oppose and go to Court, delaying for as long as possible any law that actually has to come to grips with a problem. This is the face of dysfunction and the death of democracy.
The Tea Party is infused with rage from their resentment that anyone should have the nerve to seek out a better life for themselves in any way possible, but they refuse to look at their own fellow citizens who employ (illegally BTW) all these "invaders." And it is so much easier to blame others, the DEms and the President, for not doing something and then blame them when they do.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs who pay for our elections and our politicians are laughing all the way to the bank with the money they don't pay taxes on made from money they inherited or invested. It seems that the entire nature of how Tea Party members (and everyone else) are getting fleeced by the super rich, not the illegal immigrants, totally escapes them. The rest of us want to say to the Tea Party: Put up or shut up. But instead the Tea Party and the money men prefer no law dealing with immigration, preferring instead to simply oppose and go to Court, delaying for as long as possible any law that actually has to come to grips with a problem. This is the face of dysfunction and the death of democracy.
2
Is there some reason that the Times wants to absolve Boehner from any responsibility for the immigration problem. He had the senate bill on his desk for over a year and refused to let the House vote on it. It likely would have passed with bipartisan support. Instead he bent to the will of his conservatory minority and refused to bring the bill up for a vote by the full house because it would have had some democratic support and passed. I have noticed that none of the national media mention this issue in any of its current reporting, and the Times never mentions it in this editorial. Why is the Times sheltering Boehner.
haHA Nice try, but maybe you and the president should take a civics class. Where does a bill originate? The house not the senate, You kind of understand it accept you bent in to your believes. The house has had a bill in the senate for years and the liberal and harry reid wouldnt bring it up for a vote. And also another thing you fail to remember is that the president and the liberals controlled all three branches of government for 18 months and coud have passed immigration reform and the republicans could not have stopped them, before you say that untrue just flash back to obamacare. Did the liberals pass obamacare without a single republican vote? Yes.. could the republicans stop the liberals from passing obamacare? NO so yes if immigration reform was so important why didnt the liberal pass it. Yeah they didnt because there playing politics.
3
It's totally absurd that a judge in a mere state can override the decision of a country's president. This could only happen in a country where a severely outdated and outmoded constitution still applied. Imagine a county like Lancashire in England blocking a decision of Prime Minister David Cameron. It couldn't happen and, if attempted, would be howled out of court--and rightly so. Just one more reason why the United States needs to do away with its flawed-from-the-beginning constitutional form of government and adopt a system that works. Its called Parliament and it has been working well for a good deal longer than the mostly unworkable U.S. Constitution.
If we had a Parliment, Obama would be out of a job by now.
4
"It's totally absurd that a judge in a mere state can override the decision of a country's president." - James Murphy
It's also constitutional.
And vital to the United States of America.
(See generally, checks and balances, co-equal branches of government)
It's also constitutional.
And vital to the United States of America.
(See generally, checks and balances, co-equal branches of government)
2
The US Constitution is actually working exactly to its designed purpose. It's keeping our elected leader from acting unilaterally. It is enforcing the Separation of Powers.
No worries though about this being decided by a local judge as it will soon be decided by the higher and likely highest courts.
That a local judge felt it pertinent to stay an executive order of the POTUS is just as brazen and absurd as the President's decision to write his own legislation and then sign it into law without Congressional approval.
No worries though about this being decided by a local judge as it will soon be decided by the higher and likely highest courts.
That a local judge felt it pertinent to stay an executive order of the POTUS is just as brazen and absurd as the President's decision to write his own legislation and then sign it into law without Congressional approval.
1
“Judge Hanen — who last month invoked a biblical flood in describing illegal immigration into that community”
What Judge Hagan said was “talking to people in Brownsville about immigration is like to Noah about the Flood”
Hardly a biblical invocation. In fact, it’s a regional colloquialism on the same order as “preaching to the choir”.
But the NYT needed to offer the usual dog whistles to its base in order attempt to construct an argument.
The inaction by the Congress, however egregious, does not exempt the President from our Constitutional frame work as this Editorial argues.
I’ll leave the readers with a stock tip; buy H&R Block, every person granted a Social Security number by the Presidential fiat may file three years prior tax returns to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s going to add up to billions!
What Judge Hagan said was “talking to people in Brownsville about immigration is like to Noah about the Flood”
Hardly a biblical invocation. In fact, it’s a regional colloquialism on the same order as “preaching to the choir”.
But the NYT needed to offer the usual dog whistles to its base in order attempt to construct an argument.
The inaction by the Congress, however egregious, does not exempt the President from our Constitutional frame work as this Editorial argues.
I’ll leave the readers with a stock tip; buy H&R Block, every person granted a Social Security number by the Presidential fiat may file three years prior tax returns to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s going to add up to billions!
13
The Times says that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states.
Let me be more specific. Setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the US Congress, not the President. The President is violating his oath of office to " take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Why is the Times silent on this usurpation?
Silly question.
Let me be more specific. Setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the US Congress, not the President. The President is violating his oath of office to " take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
Why is the Times silent on this usurpation?
Silly question.
10
If nothing else, this concerted action by the GOP should wake up American Hispanics and get them to the polls in 2016.
1
C'mon NYT, take off your sycophantic blinders and enough with the red-herring-athon.
The congress and judiciary are co-equal branches of the federal government. Since when does 'intransigence' justify extra-constitutional actions?
Why make up a barrel of red herrings when the administration says it is lawfully using prosecutorial discretion? Oh I understand, because in addition to that discretion, they went further, offering to issue documentation and to break the law by allowing illegals to legally work.
Is this a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Sycophants, aided by the Fourth Estate, not protected by the Fourth Estate (as the Founders intended)???
The congress and judiciary are co-equal branches of the federal government. Since when does 'intransigence' justify extra-constitutional actions?
Why make up a barrel of red herrings when the administration says it is lawfully using prosecutorial discretion? Oh I understand, because in addition to that discretion, they went further, offering to issue documentation and to break the law by allowing illegals to legally work.
Is this a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Sycophants, aided by the Fourth Estate, not protected by the Fourth Estate (as the Founders intended)???
9
And how are the people who followed the law and came to the US legally and remained here with legal immigration status supposed to feel about this policy? Like "suckers", perhaps?
5
Congress does nothing. The President gets frustrated and tells congress to do something to solve the immigration problem. Congress does nothing. Eventually the President does something and now congress does something.: use the courts to undo what the President has put into law and impeach him for doing something. This congress is a "piece of work" !!
1
Congress was not a party to this action.
1
There is no better example of the difference between the Times supposed "liberalism" when they are in fact simple "partisans". No liberal would ever support the unparralled (illegal) expansion of Executive authority that Obama himself maintained he didnt have.
5
Sadly for the Times, the role of the judge is not to embrace the latest trashing of limits on the federal government advocated by the latte crowd, but to actually ensure that a) government officials follow the law, b) that the separation of powers is preserved, and c) that unconstitutional power grabs by the executive (no matter how hip you view the current occupant) are prevented.
Of course, this judge will be your hero when President Rubio takes office in 2016. Perhaps you can enjoy that thought.
Of course, this judge will be your hero when President Rubio takes office in 2016. Perhaps you can enjoy that thought.
6
So lets see now. The Central American governments are now upset at the US because we are denying their citizens access to the US, and various benefits associated with it. Rather than of course try to improve their own nations they dictate how we should manage their citizens. Ok. Then you have groups, like the Hispanic caucus for example that demand special treatment for their ethnic group and advocating the US adjust to what these "immigrants" need. Never, ever to you hear these types of groups asking the "immigrant" to in any way respect US laws or customs. Ethnicity over country but of course the NYT will never call them out on that. Then of course it all comes down to "immigrants" who lets see.....demand a drivers license, schooling, tuition breaks, NOT to speak or learn English, NOT to be deported for crimes, have a child for free in a US hospital and collect US benefits for said child. And of course you have a foreign nation like Mexico going around the country making sure its citizens have the proper paperwork to get what they can out of the US. I guess the days when an immigrant came here and actually had respect for the country is long past. Now its an entitlement program that how dare this judge deny.
9
I really don't understand the sympathy for most illegals by the left. The average illegal is an uneducated male who is deeply Catholic, convinced of his right to father as many kids as he wants, sees women primarily as objects, does not like gays, does not favor legal abortion and in general holds positions that are quite right wing.
If he were from Alabama rather than Mexico, most liberals would freely express disgust for his religious fanaticism, sexism, homophobia and contempt for education. As an actual liberal, who really isn't into the kind of racist games the left likes to play, he's really not the kind of person I want living here. Latino culture is really not something particularly admirable, especially if you are a woman.
If he were from Alabama rather than Mexico, most liberals would freely express disgust for his religious fanaticism, sexism, homophobia and contempt for education. As an actual liberal, who really isn't into the kind of racist games the left likes to play, he's really not the kind of person I want living here. Latino culture is really not something particularly admirable, especially if you are a woman.
4
What "ism" should we use for someone like you who finds it repellent that someone might be "deeply Catholic"? And by the way, I think every American is convinced we have "the right" to have children. Did I miss something?
NO amnesty for criminals, yes criminals who broke the law illegally entering our country. deport and secure the border. where do people get off thinking they have a god given right to come here?
6
The president's exec order ---- and the bills in Congress ---- don't even consider one half of the covert resident "problem," namely visa scofflaws. Nearly half of all the coverts came to the U.S. on LEGAL visas haven't been enforced when they expire. This includes all of the 9/11 terrorists. A fence from Santa Catalina to the Virgin Islands, patrolled every ten feet by the U.S. military, would do NOTHING to fix that. Congress must reform the visa program, partly by modernizing the ways visas are processed, and partly by the way they are monitored and enforced.
This half of the "problem" isn't the southern border --- it's JFK, LAX, and every international airport in the U.S. It's every U.S. Consulate in the world that issues visas. Etc.
This half of the "problem" isn't the southern border --- it's JFK, LAX, and every international airport in the U.S. It's every U.S. Consulate in the world that issues visas. Etc.
3
Nearly 50 percent of illegal immigrants entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. However, the president's executive order applies to them as well as those who entered the country illegally. It's true that many people are unaware that stopping illegal entry wouldn't stop illegal immigration.
So the NYT Editorial Board is attacking a sitting federal judge because . . . because . . . they disagree with his ruling?????
Welcome to America, NYT Editors! It's a magical place where we leave it to trained judges--not yellow journalists like yourselves--to decide legal cases and controversies. It's a place (thank God) where a liberal's self-serving description of a Democratic President's policy ("humane and realistic" and designed "to tackle a huge and long-running national problem") do not carry the day. What a magnificent country we live in!
Welcome to America, NYT Editors! It's a magical place where we leave it to trained judges--not yellow journalists like yourselves--to decide legal cases and controversies. It's a place (thank God) where a liberal's self-serving description of a Democratic President's policy ("humane and realistic" and designed "to tackle a huge and long-running national problem") do not carry the day. What a magnificent country we live in!
14
Do people really understand the issues here? Do they know that illegal immigrants are a significant part of the local economy in many states? That they pay taxes? That deportations have not changed significantly since Clinton's time? That we could get many more jobs back by returning manufacturing to the US than would be gained from sending back illegal immigrants? Ignorance breeds contempt and leads to bad decision making at the polls. Sadly - it looks as though too many people are comfortable with the half-truths provided by outlets like Fox. The President is not the problem here people, ignorance about the facts is.
5
Yes. And you have displayed it admirably. Slavery was once a "significant part of the local economy" I believe, But I don't think that worked out very well...Of course, the "illegals" DO pay taxes, but not voluntarily out of the goodness of their hearts - their taxes like yours or mine are deducted from paychecks or added to what we buy. You are correct about one thing though - ignorance breeds contempt, and you have sure proved that.
3
So why are you spreading contempt? Because you are obviously ignorant to the facts. How does allowing illegals into country bring manufacturing back to america? are there not 11 million americans on unemployment? so how does allowing 20 millions illegals into country to take jobs we dont have if there is 11 million americans not working. And if there is jobs for 20 million illegals then you must agree that we must end unemployment benefits right. Or are you saying we can bring manufacturing back if we allow illegals and pay them less then americans to work in factories. It is liberal epa policies and liberal tax laws that has driven out factories.
3
The US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, will summarily reverse Judge Hanen's home-cooking decision and vacate his improvidently granted injunction. Keep your shirt on.
1
The court may just do that. But it will not end there. There is a long road ahead with many turns, and it will nor be resolved while Obama is in office. Or for a long time thereafter. A new and different and probably unheard of solution will have to be found before those "11 million" fade away.. If ever.
It is amusing to see the Times Editorial Board gnash their teeth about Republican "rage" in the midst of their very angry, simple and partisan screed that as usual, questions the motives and character of any who disagree with them.
I agree that rage and histrionics are unproductive and silly. This is true whether the histrionic rager is a Republican, a Democrat, a Fox News pundit or one of their peers on the NYT editorial staff. The Times needs to stop complaining about the very behavior in which it engages on a daily basis.
I agree that rage and histrionics are unproductive and silly. This is true whether the histrionic rager is a Republican, a Democrat, a Fox News pundit or one of their peers on the NYT editorial staff. The Times needs to stop complaining about the very behavior in which it engages on a daily basis.
8
Of which "histrionics," is this editorial actually guilty, please? Show us what was false or misrepresented
1
For a constitutional law professor, Mr. Obama has a miserable track record in the Federal court system. He deserved to lose this one. His presidency is imperial to the point of ridiculousness.
Shame on the NYT for trying to make this facet of the immigration battle into a partisan issue. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. If a president claimed prosecutorial discretion in not enforcing the Voting Rights Act, what would you say then.
We need immigration reform. We don't need a king!!
Shame on the NYT for trying to make this facet of the immigration battle into a partisan issue. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. If a president claimed prosecutorial discretion in not enforcing the Voting Rights Act, what would you say then.
We need immigration reform. We don't need a king!!
10
Any law enforcement body has discretion in enforcing the law. That's why some people get warnings instead of speeding tickets. It's called "prosecutorial discretion" and while it is not unlimited, courts are loathe to interfere in that discretion (unlike the court in this instance).
3
Oh we know thats is why Obama isnt prosecuting sharpton for owing million in unpaid taxes. It is his discretion not to prosecute his friends.but by not proscecuting and granting greencards he is putting and undo burdon on states
1
We DO NOT NEED IMMIGRATION REFORM! Our immigration system works very well, but very slowly. What IS a shambles is control and tracking of those who enter our country without authorization - you know, the ILLEGALS. 11 million of them at last estimate. And they will not grow less in number if "reform" is enacted, or not. Just watch. That 11 million number will continue to grow until we learn to prevent it through BORDER CONTROL and eliminating the reasons they come here..........
3
The issue is simple. Does the president have the authority NOT to enforce the laws to the point that it changes the law? The president believes HE changed the law. He has spoken publicly about it.
The president has chosen to rule unilaterally. Congress cannot raise the super-majority to override presidential veto threats. The president has created an imbalance in our constitutional system. The courts are there to restore the balance.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that federal police cannot consume significant portions of state budgets.
We have a constitutional crisis. This case goes to the SCOTUS.
The president has chosen to rule unilaterally. Congress cannot raise the super-majority to override presidential veto threats. The president has created an imbalance in our constitutional system. The courts are there to restore the balance.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that federal police cannot consume significant portions of state budgets.
We have a constitutional crisis. This case goes to the SCOTUS.
7
And THAT is a shame, based on how SCOTUS has performed in recent years.......
But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true.
4
If you like your healthcare you can keep it. Period.
Just one more lie to add to the list.
Just one more lie to add to the list.
1
Judge Hanen's temporary injunction would be easily overturned, only a few years ago. I think it will fail, even today, despite the hostility of Republican-appointed judges to Obama and anything he tries to do. States don't have standing to second-guess federal immigration policy, and that principle will survive Hanen's and any other Republican judge's attempt to rewrite the Constitution.
5
Letting illegal aliens break our laws is not a solution. Enforcing the laws ON the books is
The issue over whether states have standing was settled when the U.S. district court agree to hear the case.
Temporary injunctions from a federal court are rare, because the four legal prongs required to secure them are nearly impossible to meet. The fact that Judge Hanen issued it, and against a sitting U.S. President proves you soundly wrong.
2
It will likely be impossible to reach a bi-partisan agreement on immigration when Obama has shown he will not enforce provisions he does not like.
13
Then there's the thoughtless repetition of talking points from FOX News...
1
All good Democrats should oppose Obama's executive action. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Forget the hype. Look at the action itself. It guarantees that a law-abiding portion of the illegal community will not be deported for three years. It further guarantees them the permission to work during this time. Such a program is not new. Allowing millions to temporarily work without citizenship is known as a guest worker program. The top opponent of such programs are labor spokesmen, because they drive down wages for all unskilled workers. When Congress was arguing immigration, the Democrats opposed a guest worker program. Now, they support it because it's supposedly part way on the road to citizenship. But to get to citizenship, you need an act of Congress, which has not happened in 30 years and is unlikely to happen anytime soon. So what we're left with is a guest worker program, pure and simple. The judge issued the injunction for fear Obama has done to much. But thinking Democrats know he has done too little and what he has done harms labor, the core of the Democratic party. The crazy Republicans are just as bad -- they're opposing a plan they've supported forever. Cheap labor is their thing. Be a good Democrat. Follow the Republicans on this one. Get rid of the executive action.
3
Illegal aliens are an assault on the American public. They lower wages for our least skilled and increase taxes on the middle class. They live in ethnic enclaves where learning English is not a priority. They're good for the elites who run this newspaper and lousy for everyone else. Why should they be given permission to stay? Because it benefits them? Is that really the purpose of our societal laws -- to make life easier for unskilled Latinos who have freely broken our laws?
15
jobs lost? Tell it to the vegetable and fruit farmers, dude. Tell it to the meatpackers. Tell it to the construction companies. Tell it to the hotels/motels. Tell it to the restaurants. Tell it to the rich on childcare. Tell mitt romney to mow it himself.
1
Hey, I thought Jefferson worked for a democracy in which well-educated, thoughtful citizens debated important issues in intelligent, meaningful ways based on facts rather than prejudice.
I guess we're all doomed to some disappointment.
I guess we're all doomed to some disappointment.
You don't expect the NY Times editorial board to mow their own lawns or take care of their own children, do you?
That's why they endorse illegal immigration.
That's why they endorse illegal immigration.
2
These judges are, sadly, a joke. Rather than review the law and decide issues based on the merits they inject their personal beliefs into their decisions. It's shameful and has become all too common…look no further than our very own Supreme Court.
3
The same could be said about Obama. He overtly ignores the bounds of the law (i.e., the Constitution) and enacts law based on his personal beliefs.
The law is unconstitutional
I've never met a liberal who had a problem with judicial activism. After all, isn't that how Roe v. Wade came into being? The justices just made up a new right.
Its a two-edged sword.
But in this case, the federal judge prevented an imperial move by the president. Do you really want presidents to have the power to repeal laws by the stroke of a pen?
Its a two-edged sword.
But in this case, the federal judge prevented an imperial move by the president. Do you really want presidents to have the power to repeal laws by the stroke of a pen?
The Republicans want our federal government to be like the European Union model. Each state would be separately ruled with nothing but treaties holding the group together. I'm not sure the Republican people want that radical of a change in government that is developing in philosophy by action such as the one advanced by the Brownsville judge.
For one, it's a very expensive proposition on each state to have its own army, navy and marine corp. It's Secession by action.
America would fall apart by the seams.
For one, it's a very expensive proposition on each state to have its own army, navy and marine corp. It's Secession by action.
America would fall apart by the seams.
2
The 26 states that have filed suit are trying to force President Obama to federal immigrations laws, not state immigrations laws. There are no state immigration laws. This is radically differently than passing laws that nullify federal laws, as four liberal states have done passing state laws legalizing marijuana sales.
3
The Democrats want our federal government to be like the European Union model which, essentially, has no borders and permits European residents to travel, work and live anywhere in Europe. Our model would permit anyone from Africa, Mexico, Central America, etc. to do the same.
I would recommend that every commenter here decide prior to commenting if they believe that Obama's action, the Judge's action, any action by Congress or any attempt at "immigration reform" will solve the problem of millions of people crossing our borders illegally, and if such action will reduce the numbers now here in hiding........
5
The era of pretending that the solution to this problem lies in greater border security is over. That train left the station years ago.
The issue is immigration reform, which the Congress refuses to touch.
The issue is immigration reform, which the Congress refuses to touch.
1
The was nothing humane about luring tens of thousands of children to risk their lives to come to the US.
9
A namby-pamby piece, Times editors.
You should use stronger, more gutsy language on the outlandishly
coordinated inhumanities of the Republican Party.
And how does such a miserable excuse for a judge get to be a judge?
You should use stronger, more gutsy language on the outlandishly
coordinated inhumanities of the Republican Party.
And how does such a miserable excuse for a judge get to be a judge?
1
Are you experiencing issues with illegal aliens up in Toronto?
2
Notice you live in Toronto. LOL Your thoughts on what America does is completely irrelevant!
1
"Alberto Gonzales was born to a Catholic family in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in Humble, a town outside of Houston. Of Mexican descent, he was the second of eight children born to Maria (Rodriguez) and Pablo M. Gonzales.[9] His father, who died in 1982, was a migrant worker and then a construction worker with a second grade education."
Hmmm. Should we have kicked this man and his family out of the country?
Hmmm. Should we have kicked this man and his family out of the country?
3
He was born here
I like how the editorial at the end completely ignores the substance of the ruling, choosing instead to go with the Republicans are mean rationale as opposed to actually telling us why the administration can ignore procedural mandates. Nice job.
5
Dear, the Executive Order SETS procedural mandates.That's what the Executive Branch DOES.
1
Of course liberal Democrats are outraged and a well reasoned ruling against their agenda is automatically an "assault". The judge was suppose to make up law, or ignore the law, reason, logic, legal precedents and rule in their favor. Like they have on gay marriage. Who knew that there was still a Federal Judge who based his rulings on reality and would demand that the laws of the United States actually be enforced and interpreted in a sane manner using a common lexicon. What a surprise! Yet, he should know better. Democrats will only accept hysterics, emotions and anti-American rulings that denigrate and bring into disrepute our laws, our sovereignty, our national identity and traditions. The twin ideas of rule of law, and the rule by laws and not by men are especially unwelcome on the left.
Democrats are adamant that we are no longer the world's policeman and may not impose our values. At the same time they are equally adamant that we are the world's social services, poverty dumping ground and that they may impose their white, guilt ridden values on the nation without the writ of democracy, sanity or reason. Very odd. Could it all be just for the personal monetary and political gain of Democrat politicians and the Democrat party?
Democrats are adamant that we are no longer the world's policeman and may not impose our values. At the same time they are equally adamant that we are the world's social services, poverty dumping ground and that they may impose their white, guilt ridden values on the nation without the writ of democracy, sanity or reason. Very odd. Could it all be just for the personal monetary and political gain of Democrat politicians and the Democrat party?
5
So when the district court is reversed by the fifth circuit, you will be defending that decision, right? I won't hold my breathe.
1
Ah yes, the gays and the...well, I'd prefer not to use the word you clearly intend: no wonder America is a-declining and a-falling.
I sure wish you guys would learn American history. You can start with just how much freedom of worship the Massachusetts Bay Colony offered, just how many men in Washington's army actually spoke English, and just what the Nativist movement had to say about the Irish.
I sure wish you guys would learn American history. You can start with just how much freedom of worship the Massachusetts Bay Colony offered, just how many men in Washington's army actually spoke English, and just what the Nativist movement had to say about the Irish.
1
Your headline is misleading. It should read "A Judge's Assault on Illegal Immigration."
I do wish the NYT would clearly articulate its position on immigration. It seems to be a version of the "wet foot, dry foot" policy applied to Cubans. That is, if you get to the US, you can stay. If there is something different from that I wish it would be explicitly stated.
I do wish the NYT would clearly articulate its position on immigration. It seems to be a version of the "wet foot, dry foot" policy applied to Cubans. That is, if you get to the US, you can stay. If there is something different from that I wish it would be explicitly stated.
14
For Texas and other Market Brutalist states, millions of overtime, two-job workers with no unions or legal rights, workers who can be fired, jailed, or deported at the drop of a dime are the next best thing to the good old slaves "stolen" from them by the federal government. The Brutalist Consensus marches on!
2
At the most, it will take about two years to remove a majority of the illegal aliens. Many exaggerate the time it will take, but it just won't be a difficult process at all.
5
Are you gong to pay for that Joel? Just do the math 11 million x $20,000 a person.
No doubt you'll be volunteering to wear the black uniform and load the cattle cars.
It isn't a judge's assault on immigration; it is a judge defending the American people against an invasion.
12
Texas, what else is new. Some of the conservative states probably don't care, as they are as reckless with their policies and electorate process as they are with outlandish decrees by judges. It may be cultural, but a culture of anger and "my way or no way" translates as idiotic an dangerous in the world we live in.
The state that took Kennedy, gave us two Bushes, has a history of racism and homophobia, promotes a gun culture and calls education, elitist. You can keep the whole big of it. I'm proudly from New England.
The state that took Kennedy, gave us two Bushes, has a history of racism and homophobia, promotes a gun culture and calls education, elitist. You can keep the whole big of it. I'm proudly from New England.
7
Texas is one of 26 states that participated in the lawsuit. Judge Hanan is a federal judge, not a Texas judge. Texas is one of the nation's most diverse states. Non-Hispanics whites make up less than 44 percent of the Texas population. Texas Governor Gregg Abbot is not Hispanic, but his wife and children are Hispanic.
3
@ William Case: A Federal Judge from Texas, who in fact has a track record of rulings with a conservative judicial agenda, corrupting the oath he took to view cases impartial of politics. Do Judges like him exist in other places, you bet. Is it wrong, you bet. He has spoken out against President Obama not solely as a Judge but with his personal political opinions. He should properly recuse himself if he had decency and respect for the position he holds. I'm certain Texas has a wide swath of decent, smart, open-minded people. They are unfortunately silenced by a majority of citizens who think it's funny, or cool to be ignorant, to pull a pistol rather than engage in debate where perhaps people can learn something through what the person may be thinking. Economics has a way of blinding skin color. The Governor's wife may be of hispanic descent, but she is not huddled in the corner of a trailer fearful that she and her husband are going to be deported after 25 years as a housekeeper and groundskeeper respectively. Most of the people here illegally are decent, hardworking and contribute greatly to our country, far more than our elected officials who abuse their power. Your comparison does not negate perhaps racism by any person. We found money for a Trillion dollar illegal war in a snap, but for people who might require a small fraction of that, we are up in arms. It's racism, and you are correct. It's not just in Texas.
The president may have authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in focusing deportation efforts on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, but he does not have authority to grant millions of illegal immigrants immunity to deportation, work permits, social security numbers and drivers licenses. The New York Times' dismissal of Judge Hanen's observation that Texas spends millions to educate illegal immigrants on grounds the "Constitution" already requires them to provide that education" is silly. The Constitution requires no such thing; a federal court ruling established that requirement. But if the federal government would deport illegal immigrants as required by federal law, there would be no illegal immigrant children to educate. If The federal government would enforce immigration laws, Texas would not have to spend hundreds of million on health care for illegal immigrants.
16
i wish the Constitution-thumpers knew--or would take some time and go find out--just what it is that Federal judges do.
i also wish that people'd get over this whole "strict construction" (you know...I have privileged access to what Madison had and you don't) fantasy. What with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative being pretty much locked in combat over intrepretation since what? The Zenger case?
Or at least just fess up to what's really happening: you're arguing a political and ideological case, not demonstrating God's Will.
i also wish that people'd get over this whole "strict construction" (you know...I have privileged access to what Madison had and you don't) fantasy. What with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative being pretty much locked in combat over intrepretation since what? The Zenger case?
Or at least just fess up to what's really happening: you're arguing a political and ideological case, not demonstrating God's Will.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen ruled correctly that “the administration’s programs would impose major burdens on states, unleashing illegal immigration and straining state budgets, and that the administration had not followed required procedures for changing federal rules.” The current elected regime in Washington seems to think it can rule without consulting the Constitution; it seems to believe it can make the rules as it goes along. Well the Founding Fathers, who the Liberals vehemently despise, established a nation with laws and the Constitution is the blueprint for following those laws. America, whether the Liberals like it or not, is a nation of laws that must be obeyed. Obey the laws, Liberals, obey the laws. Then everything will be all right.
8
Can we also go by the bits of the Constitution you guys don't like?
1
The Times glaringly omits one very relative and accurate adjective from this editorial. Let me insert it for them, and I'll do it in the headline:
"A Judge's Assault on Illegal Immigration"
Puts everything in perspective, doesn't it?
"A Judge's Assault on Illegal Immigration"
Puts everything in perspective, doesn't it?
109
"A Judge's Assault on Illegal Immigration"
That true !
Kudos to the judge !
That true !
Kudos to the judge !
Please enlighten the rest of us by what you think constitutes "illegal immigration." It is not clear that Judge Hanen adequately understands the immigration laws.
I never could understand the lawyer-talk-justification of how it is legal for the executive branch- the President- to just enforce the parts of a law that he agree's with. That phony excuse that Obama is using to justify his illegal approach that the government does not have the resources to enforce in full the immigration laws, so he is going to pick and choose the parts that he considers most important to spend the limited government resources on.
By this kind of reasoning, the average citizen can pick and choose what parts of a law that they choose to obey.
I am a life long Democratic voter, but this is not a Republican of Democratic issue.
The Constitution is clear- Congress passes the laws, and the Executive branch enforces them as they are written. There is no politically correct wiggle room written into the document.
By this kind of reasoning, the average citizen can pick and choose what parts of a law that they choose to obey.
I am a life long Democratic voter, but this is not a Republican of Democratic issue.
The Constitution is clear- Congress passes the laws, and the Executive branch enforces them as they are written. There is no politically correct wiggle room written into the document.
79
Actually, you are wrong, there is executive discretion on which cases need to be handled first. He could have probably continued quietly with the way he was handling the deportations, but wanted to get the issue into the public view.
Imagine the chaos and uproar had he came out and said that we would now be spending our scarce resources to deport the guy who cuts your lawn, the woman who cleans your hotel room, the parents of your child's friend.
And he couldn't stop with just deporting Mexicans and South Americans, nope the German and French and English folks would have to go too.
The scope of this situation is epic, it has been going on for a long time, and the real crime is the hiring of these people to work jobs for less than prevailing wages. That denies the job to you or me, and keeps the rest of the wages suppressed.
Imagine the chaos and uproar had he came out and said that we would now be spending our scarce resources to deport the guy who cuts your lawn, the woman who cleans your hotel room, the parents of your child's friend.
And he couldn't stop with just deporting Mexicans and South Americans, nope the German and French and English folks would have to go too.
The scope of this situation is epic, it has been going on for a long time, and the real crime is the hiring of these people to work jobs for less than prevailing wages. That denies the job to you or me, and keeps the rest of the wages suppressed.
2
You may want to call George Bush immediately. Or failing that, find out how our government actually works.
1
Do your homework! There is nothing phony about the HUNDREDS of Executive Orders by President Obama's predecessor George W. Bush or his Daddy before him. For that matter, presidential executive orders go back to the 1st president of the United States ~ George Washington. Just because you don't like them (or the current President) doesn't make them illegal.
3
The assault was not on immigration. The assault was on granting to one ethnic group almost limitless and unfettered access to immigration and a leg up toward electoral majority in 50 years. The activist groups pushing this are neither humane (since the root "human" indicates concern for all rather than just one's own group) nor a solution to a problem. The real solution to the "problem" was to punish business soundly over the last 60 years for their violations of the law, and massive deportation of illegal immigrants steadily and relentlessly. This "humane" solution simply leaves out the sensibilities and wishes of the rest of us legal voters-as European governments are finding out as the rage over there grows at just letting everyone in and then wondering where culture and telling people already here that they have no right to their own cultures because they're too comfortable.
9
Excellent article, However please keep in mind that under President Obama administration, more aliens were deported,than with any previous President,
6
That is because he counts border turnarounds as a deportation unlike previous administrations. This has been stated and proven over and over again. I think you just have blinders on.
Complete and utter nonsense
How many employers has Judge Andrew Hanen helped prosecute for hiring illegal immigrants?
Extending the argument, how many employers in Brownsville, Texas, have been prosecuted for hiring Illegals?
And, why, as another commentator noted, is the City of Brownsville defending President Obama's actions?
There is clearly no appetite for removing the cause of illegal immigration - the availability of decent paying jobs in the US for undocumented workers.
This suits the Republicans just fine as they shift the argument to the impeachment of and/or bringing lawsuits against President Obama.
Extending the argument, how many employers in Brownsville, Texas, have been prosecuted for hiring Illegals?
And, why, as another commentator noted, is the City of Brownsville defending President Obama's actions?
There is clearly no appetite for removing the cause of illegal immigration - the availability of decent paying jobs in the US for undocumented workers.
This suits the Republicans just fine as they shift the argument to the impeachment of and/or bringing lawsuits against President Obama.
7
Hey Mike news for you: judges do NOT prosecute 'offenders'. The prosecutors do by bringing a case before the judge's court and the judge or the jury decides.
Please make an effort to find out who does what and how things work in this country.
Please make an effort to find out who does what and how things work in this country.
1
I keep seeing the exact same phrases popping up in almost all of the comments opposing Obama's initiative: "invasion", "illegal aliens", "lawless", "amnesty" and my favorite, "king."
It's uncanny. Either all these commenters are connected by some sort of psychic harmony, or they're all being fed these slurs by a single source. It's a puzzlement.
It's uncanny. Either all these commenters are connected by some sort of psychic harmony, or they're all being fed these slurs by a single source. It's a puzzlement.
10
Hey David, why do you think that the illegal aliens are NOT acting lawlessly by invading our country, and now seeking amnesty from the president who is not a king?
See, if you put all those words in a sentence, it makes perfect sense.
See, if you put all those words in a sentence, it makes perfect sense.
2
I believe Obama is the one who used the words "emperor" and "king." Back when he said the Constitution does not allow him to repeal the law.
1
"Amnesty" "lawless" "illegal alien" and "king" are slurs? Let's see -- the first two are used by Obama supporters all the time ("lawless" being the label for any judge who doesn't rule in their favor) -- illegal alien is a factual description and I think I've heard the phrase "imperial presidency" used by the editorial staff of the NY Times in other contexts.
But of course, they must all emanate from a single source because it couldn't be that more than one person in the United States disagrees with Obama's immigration policy. We've got to find that guy and silence him!
But of course, they must all emanate from a single source because it couldn't be that more than one person in the United States disagrees with Obama's immigration policy. We've got to find that guy and silence him!
2
As an immigrant "latino" as many prejudiced democrats would call me, I am glad to see that the this judge is upholding the Constitution of the USA.
We cannot survive in a nation where laws are selectively applied to benefit a few, in this case illegal immigrants. That reminds me the reason I left my country of origin where laws are ignored and only applied to benefit a few groups.
We cannot survive in a nation where laws are selectively applied to benefit a few, in this case illegal immigrants. That reminds me the reason I left my country of origin where laws are ignored and only applied to benefit a few groups.
9
Okay, I can buy into the fact that the president has discretion in deciding who to deport but how in the world can any law abiding citizen argue he has the power to dish out benefits and work permits to people here illegally.
10
"White House did not follow proper administrative procedure, which requires certain executive actions to be preceded by a public notice and comment period." A small point in the article but an example of continuing failure of Obama's people to dot every i and cross every t. Failures of staff work give opposition an opening that they can wedge their obstructionist efforts into. Even the ACA costing millions had shoddy staff work, failure to proof read and lawyer the language re: subsidies. Oversight and supervision of administration staff is sub par.
2
My great-grandfather, a German Jew immigrsted to Temple, TX in the late 1880s open a general store along a train line. My grandfather born in Temple in 1890 moved to NYC became a lawyer and eventually license commissioner of the City. He even was hired by the Bronx Democratic committee to defend a man in a free speech case involving then Governor FDR which made it to NY's highest court. (Sidney won!). How different things would have been if Solomon never immigrated.
1
He wasn't here illegally.
1
I would have thought there was someone on the editorial board at the NYT that remembered another one of our government's larger failures...... immigration reform. The 1986 Immigration "Control" Act, aka, The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was another, in a long line of feeble attempts, by the federal government to do something to stop a problem. By addressing the problem, the government took the easy way out and legalized about 3 and 1/2 million law breakers. The federal government's success has now led to approximately 11 million law breakers, not counting the hundreds of thousands of children who showed their contempt for America by storming our unwatched borders.
The amazing thing is that the same exact people calling for yet another time wasting exercise (another immigration reform bill) believe that government can effectively manage our health care when it clearly couldn't keep 11 million unwanted, uneducated poor from walking across our southern border.
The amazing thing is that the same exact people calling for yet another time wasting exercise (another immigration reform bill) believe that government can effectively manage our health care when it clearly couldn't keep 11 million unwanted, uneducated poor from walking across our southern border.
3
You concluded this editorial by saying Republicans have no meaningful solutions of their own. If you haven't noticed Republicans do not need solutions, they win elections and that is all they care about. Their strategy is very clever, oppose the president on everything, savage him as you pointed out in your editorial and then tell the American public the country is going to hell in a handbasket. Fear mongering works, they control the Senate, they control the House and they control a majority of state governments. Why should they govern when they continually win elections?
8
To continue this train of thought, the (r)s have proven that they can win elections. Now, they are proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are utterly incapable of governing. They are not motivated in the least by a desire to make America a better place, but rather by a toxic combination of a craving for power and a blind rage against the twice-elected President Obama, whom they believe to be a Muslim secular humanist atheist Nazi socialist communist weak-willed tyrant from Kenya. As long as they can win elections, they think it's OK to stop making sense.
1
The Republicans are free to vote for a comprehensive immigration law and have been for years now. However, they obviously had rather just snipe at Obama's efforts to deal with the problem. Obama is not the problem here.
8
The judiciary is supposed to be the protector of our Constitution and remediator of excess from the other two branches of government. But it has become corrupted by activist jurists who would rather follow their own personal beliefs than the law. Politics-driven justice is justice denied.
So you believe Obama followed the law, that he has the Constitutional authority to a) choose to confer legal status on 4 million people here illegally in defiance of existing law , and b) to grant them social security numbers and legal work status, again in defiance of existing law?
1
Are you calling for a repeal of Roe v. Wade?
And the enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act?
It's not a judge's assault on immigration that is the story here, it is an autocrat's assault on constitutional government and his usurpation of the law-making power of Congress. By single-handedly imposing the most far-reaching health care law in our history, and a complete national policy reversal as to immigration, the president has shown callous disregard for constitutional principles and typical ends-justify-the-means liberal mentality.
7
How sad. You still can't get over Congress passing the Affordable Health Care Act, all LEGAL and ABOVE BOARD!! Now how is it The President usurped the power of Congress? Over 11 million United States citizens now have health care coverage who didn't less than three years ago. Now, how callous is that?!
1
Blah, blah, blah. Mean Republicans. It may shock the Editorial Board to know that: Section 4, Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion." Few Americans have a problem with legal immigration. It is the uncontrollable Illegal immigration which burdens us. By the way, the Constitution does not say anything about public education.
10
Dear NY Times and other Media
Why are you giving the Republicans a pass on this illegal immigrant story? The years between 2000 and 2008 (remember whose administration that was?) is the period when new illegal immigrants increased by 4 million -- a 50% increase to 12 million when the Obama administration began. The number since then has tapered off, though not by much.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immi...
If we ask 'who gained?" from that rapid increase, we might look to a range of businesses that hired these people, below minimum wage, too afraid to organize for fair labor standards, etc.
Why are you giving the Republicans a pass on this illegal immigrant story? The years between 2000 and 2008 (remember whose administration that was?) is the period when new illegal immigrants increased by 4 million -- a 50% increase to 12 million when the Obama administration began. The number since then has tapered off, though not by much.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immi...
If we ask 'who gained?" from that rapid increase, we might look to a range of businesses that hired these people, below minimum wage, too afraid to organize for fair labor standards, etc.
6
The republicans complain about judicial activism until they choose to utilize judicial activism for their benefit. The hypocrisy of these people never ceases to amaze me.
2
This isn't judicial activism. It is the function of the judiciary. The judge is not making new law. But then again law was something progressives never much cared about unless they could use it as a club.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. The sword of judicial activism was forged in the 1930s by FDR.
President Obama's lack of Presidential leadership has been historic.
The responsibility of any President is to unite Americans and find bipartisan solutions to the country's problems.
President Obama has not only failed at this but dismissed these goals as unimportant.
His failure on Immigration is just one example of many.
The responsibility of any President is to unite Americans and find bipartisan solutions to the country's problems.
President Obama has not only failed at this but dismissed these goals as unimportant.
His failure on Immigration is just one example of many.
4
It is a funny thing with facts, they never seem to get in the way of these neo-fascist arguments from republicans.
On Obama's inauguration day 22 republican big shots met in D.C. steak house to pledge to each other they would give no quarter to the president. They would obstruct at every turn, no matter the consequences to all America. And they have been true to their word to each other, but they have severely offended their oath to the Constitution.
At every turn his offers of compromise have been rebuked. Then republicans shriek that he has divided the Country. Had Boehner been around with his nonsense when G. Washington was in the office he would have been hanged for treason.
On Obama's inauguration day 22 republican big shots met in D.C. steak house to pledge to each other they would give no quarter to the president. They would obstruct at every turn, no matter the consequences to all America. And they have been true to their word to each other, but they have severely offended their oath to the Constitution.
At every turn his offers of compromise have been rebuked. Then republicans shriek that he has divided the Country. Had Boehner been around with his nonsense when G. Washington was in the office he would have been hanged for treason.
2
Unite Americans? Surely you jest?! Who can forget Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell standing in front of the media proclaiming the number one priority of the Republican Party was defeating the newly elected President of the United States ~ Barack Obama. ...and Republicans haven't stopped to take a breath since in excoriating every minute detail of the Obama presidency. It has been relentless and exhausting and has led to an incredibly divided country because of lies, obfuscations, insults and recriminations repeated over and over again as though the more often they are repeated will make them true.
1
Law is mostly, if not entirely, racial ethnic sectarian socioeconomic educational history. Law has nothing naturally nor normally to do with either justice or morality. The law is not objective nor logical nor fair. Within the confines of any legal system that govern any nation state everything that humans can conceive can be and has been legal. Laws are the result of political negotiations with the majority rule being the norm. Minority rights and participation are always uncertain and tenuous.
As the least democratic branch of our divided limited powered republic the judiciary endangers it's legitimacy if it openly becomes a party to the partisan political discourse. The ethical obligation of any lawyer including any judge or justice is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. No one elected Andrew S. Hanen. And Judge Hanen is merely one of many members of the lowest local level of the federal judiciary. After this is over this judge should be forced to address ethical concerns as both a judge and a lawyer by the appropriate bar association, judicial and legislative oversight authorities.
Prosecutorial discretion is an innate inherent executive function. And the President of the United States is the ultimate executive prosecutor in our federal system endowed with broad powers as the singular elected national worldwide representative of the American people. This is an assault on the basis of our government. It can not and will not stand.
As the least democratic branch of our divided limited powered republic the judiciary endangers it's legitimacy if it openly becomes a party to the partisan political discourse. The ethical obligation of any lawyer including any judge or justice is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. No one elected Andrew S. Hanen. And Judge Hanen is merely one of many members of the lowest local level of the federal judiciary. After this is over this judge should be forced to address ethical concerns as both a judge and a lawyer by the appropriate bar association, judicial and legislative oversight authorities.
Prosecutorial discretion is an innate inherent executive function. And the President of the United States is the ultimate executive prosecutor in our federal system endowed with broad powers as the singular elected national worldwide representative of the American people. This is an assault on the basis of our government. It can not and will not stand.
1
What we feared when the Republicans [with only 36% of the country bothering to vote] won both houses has come to pass. No new ideas just more obstruction,
more bluster and more obfuscation from Mr Boenher, The GOP promised things would be different now. They lied,
more bluster and more obfuscation from Mr Boenher, The GOP promised things would be different now. They lied,
3
"Illegals without criminal record" I thought coming here illegally is considered a crime? so they all have a criminal record.
7
Actually, being in this country without documentation is not a crime. And unless someone is found guilty of the charge of illegal entry, in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not have a criminal record. Read more here http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-....
And to those other commenters who want to edit the Times' editorial headline by adding the word "illegal", your editing is not needed or correct.
And to those other commenters who want to edit the Times' editorial headline by adding the word "illegal", your editing is not needed or correct.
1
Cases like this undermine the public's confidence in an independent judiciary. This judge is clearly a political hack. We really need to address how judges are appointed and retained.
1
Once, long ago, the New York Times Editorial Board (although always liberal) stood up for constitutional principles, checks and balances and against executive overreach. Sadly now they have become nothing more than an organ of the Obama administration and the DNC parroting daily talking points in defense of their actions, principles be damned.
Obama's charges to immigration policies rest on questionable legal grounds - as Obama admitted dozens of times in 2013/2014 that he didn't have the legal authority to enact the changes he subsequently just enacted. The legislative branch (through the power of the purse or impeachment) and the judicial branch (through opining on the constitutionality of Presidential actions) are vital safeguards built into our Constitution to protect us from an Imperial Presidency. Any time either has the temerity to challenge Obama's actions, predictably the New York Times Editorial Board is always more than willing to be outraged and to sacrifice Constitutional safeguards at the altar of their desired outcomes. Sad indeed.
Obama's charges to immigration policies rest on questionable legal grounds - as Obama admitted dozens of times in 2013/2014 that he didn't have the legal authority to enact the changes he subsequently just enacted. The legislative branch (through the power of the purse or impeachment) and the judicial branch (through opining on the constitutionality of Presidential actions) are vital safeguards built into our Constitution to protect us from an Imperial Presidency. Any time either has the temerity to challenge Obama's actions, predictably the New York Times Editorial Board is always more than willing to be outraged and to sacrifice Constitutional safeguards at the altar of their desired outcomes. Sad indeed.
8
"Any time [the legislative or judicial branches have] the temerity to challenge Obama's actions, predictably the New York Times Editorial Board is always more than willing to be outraged and to sacrifice Constitutional safeguards at the altar of their desired outcomes. Sad indeed."
Exactly.
Adhering to constitutional process is the only way we can continue to be a nation governed by the laws of our own choosing. The principle of self-governance is more important than any individual policy outcome.
My friends on the left say the president has to act in the face of legislative gridlock. But that girdlock is the product of The Peoples' choices. Destroying the promise of 2 centuries of self-governance on the childish alter of impatience is exactly the sort of tyranny the 4th estate was constitutionally protected to disclose. It is sad indeed that the great Grey Lady can't bring itself to do so.
Exactly.
Adhering to constitutional process is the only way we can continue to be a nation governed by the laws of our own choosing. The principle of self-governance is more important than any individual policy outcome.
My friends on the left say the president has to act in the face of legislative gridlock. But that girdlock is the product of The Peoples' choices. Destroying the promise of 2 centuries of self-governance on the childish alter of impatience is exactly the sort of tyranny the 4th estate was constitutionally protected to disclose. It is sad indeed that the great Grey Lady can't bring itself to do so.
1
With the GOP having controlled the House for most of the last 20 years, and now with control of the Senate for a second time in as long, why is it that Americans don't have any specifics of what their policies are?
Immigration? Health care? Environment? They love saying, "no", but do not offer a known alternative.
I'm still waiting for the details of their 2012 tax cuts that Romney ran on.
Never with any details, but quick to say the Dems are wrong.
My only conclusion is that they don't have any real policy on anything. They've been in the minority for so long that they've lost all ability to offer solutions.
Immigration? Health care? Environment? They love saying, "no", but do not offer a known alternative.
I'm still waiting for the details of their 2012 tax cuts that Romney ran on.
Never with any details, but quick to say the Dems are wrong.
My only conclusion is that they don't have any real policy on anything. They've been in the minority for so long that they've lost all ability to offer solutions.
6
They are parents of American citizens because they came here illegally to have their children knowing full well that their children would be American citizens in spite of their ignoring our laws.
Two Presidents in a row supported immigration reform. The Democrats controlled the Congress for 2 years during each of their administrations and nothing was done legislatively. President Obama signaled a shift in policy and our borders were over run with unaccompanied children creating a humanitarian crisis.
I disagree with the Judges ruling but the President helped create the crisis he is now trying to deal with. He also created the crisis in Libya when he injected himself in a civil conflict and took out the government. He also signaled the US would support rebels in Syria and he has carried out a long secret war in Yemen.
Nothing was done on immigration until the election was past us. Boots went on the ground against ISIL as soon as the election was over.
The President has an awful lot of power. He has abused it not by using executive orders but waiting until he was free of politically covering his own party to use it. Even his asking for Congress's approval on new war powers acts is disguised to give Democrats some cover while vastly expanding his war power to any where in the world. At the same time he is saying he can act without the resolution.
Two Presidents in a row supported immigration reform. The Democrats controlled the Congress for 2 years during each of their administrations and nothing was done legislatively. President Obama signaled a shift in policy and our borders were over run with unaccompanied children creating a humanitarian crisis.
I disagree with the Judges ruling but the President helped create the crisis he is now trying to deal with. He also created the crisis in Libya when he injected himself in a civil conflict and took out the government. He also signaled the US would support rebels in Syria and he has carried out a long secret war in Yemen.
Nothing was done on immigration until the election was past us. Boots went on the ground against ISIL as soon as the election was over.
The President has an awful lot of power. He has abused it not by using executive orders but waiting until he was free of politically covering his own party to use it. Even his asking for Congress's approval on new war powers acts is disguised to give Democrats some cover while vastly expanding his war power to any where in the world. At the same time he is saying he can act without the resolution.
2
"However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. " Yes, the intransigence is that the GOP doesn't want anything Obama tries to succeed. They are counting on Americans not to recognize their tactics for what they are: an attempt to deny Obama's legitimacy as president and an inability to recognize that there are real needs in America that have nothing to do with who occupies the White House.
What would be very interesting would be to know how many of our elected representatives have illegal immigration in their backgrounds. I'm sure that there are more than a few. However, this attitude on the part of the GOP is an expected part of their game plan to thwart Obama at every step. Sensible health care reform: no way. Funding the government for a year: only if they can shut down Homeland Security which they feel is important but not important enough not to be a political football. Upgrading roads, telecommunications, education, maintaining national treasures: nope because it will make Obama look good. Immigration reform: forget it because it will make Obama look good. Anything that makes Obama look good is bad for the GOP. No matter that Americans suffer because of this: the GOP is much more important.
What would be very interesting would be to know how many of our elected representatives have illegal immigration in their backgrounds. I'm sure that there are more than a few. However, this attitude on the part of the GOP is an expected part of their game plan to thwart Obama at every step. Sensible health care reform: no way. Funding the government for a year: only if they can shut down Homeland Security which they feel is important but not important enough not to be a political football. Upgrading roads, telecommunications, education, maintaining national treasures: nope because it will make Obama look good. Immigration reform: forget it because it will make Obama look good. Anything that makes Obama look good is bad for the GOP. No matter that Americans suffer because of this: the GOP is much more important.
2
Republicans only believe in democracy when one of theirs is elected. When it's a democrat they will go to extraordinary lengths to de-legitimize the election and the process.
The birth of the American fascist party.
Curiouser and curiouser
The birth of the American fascist party.
Curiouser and curiouser
3
To slobhan:
No, what is offered is not, repeat not, a 'de facto green card' as you say.
A green card leads to citizenship, and those in possession of it - depending on the country of origin - still have to wait often more than one decade to receive citizenship.
President Obama has only issued a deportation deferment order for parents of citizens and legal residents, those with a clean record, enabled them to come out of the shadows, pay back taxes, thus indeed helping and not hurting the economy as every economist agrees on.
And, by the way, concentrating on those illegals who have indeed broken laws inside this country, President Obama has deported many more than his predecessors.
No, what is offered is not, repeat not, a 'de facto green card' as you say.
A green card leads to citizenship, and those in possession of it - depending on the country of origin - still have to wait often more than one decade to receive citizenship.
President Obama has only issued a deportation deferment order for parents of citizens and legal residents, those with a clean record, enabled them to come out of the shadows, pay back taxes, thus indeed helping and not hurting the economy as every economist agrees on.
And, by the way, concentrating on those illegals who have indeed broken laws inside this country, President Obama has deported many more than his predecessors.
93
The following is from a White House memo from 2010. The whole thing is on the Washington Post website (link provided below):
"Maintaining the status quo with regard to the millions of illegal immigrants living in the US threatens our security and fuels the underground economy…DHS has long envisioned legislation establishing a broad-based legalization program…During Phase 1, eligible applicants would be registered, fingerprinted, screened, and considered for an interim status that allow them to work in the US…During Phase II, applicants who had fulfilled additional requirements would be permitted to become lawful permanent residents."
"In the absence of legislation, much of Phase i could still be implemented wither by the Secretary of Homeland Security granting…deferred action status or by the President granting deferred enforced departure."
"Such a…program would require undocumented immigrants to register their presence in the US in exchange for work authorization."
That is a perfect summary of what is being proposed, for Phase 1. It'w well worth reading the entire memo:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/dhs_draft_memo...
"Maintaining the status quo with regard to the millions of illegal immigrants living in the US threatens our security and fuels the underground economy…DHS has long envisioned legislation establishing a broad-based legalization program…During Phase 1, eligible applicants would be registered, fingerprinted, screened, and considered for an interim status that allow them to work in the US…During Phase II, applicants who had fulfilled additional requirements would be permitted to become lawful permanent residents."
"In the absence of legislation, much of Phase i could still be implemented wither by the Secretary of Homeland Security granting…deferred action status or by the President granting deferred enforced departure."
"Such a…program would require undocumented immigrants to register their presence in the US in exchange for work authorization."
That is a perfect summary of what is being proposed, for Phase 1. It'w well worth reading the entire memo:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/dhs_draft_memo...
2
The Obama admin. has changed the definition of a "deportation". All people caught and turned away at the border are now considered "deportations". This has never been the case in the past and is why Obama seems to be deporting more than past administrations which is completely false when you take the time to dig a little deeper and find out the real facts.
Sarah, how do you figure back taxes for people who have worked off of the books for years?
Maybe the law per se isn't unconstitutional but the way it was enacted probably is. Mr. President seems to have a penchant for pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and it's time to tighten the reigns on his monarchy.
4
What about Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes? If I remember correctly they used executive orders. No one pounced on them the way the GOP is pouncing on Obama. Maybe it's something about Obama getting credit while the GOP pretends that everything is okay when it's not.
2
I agree. And I am a long-time Obama supporter and a Democrat. But, I feel the Constitution comes first, and that the powers given to each branch of our government should not be stolen by another branch.
2
"What he did not do was dispute the president’s broad authority to decide whom to deport, which is exactly what the Obama administration did in prioritizing the removal of immigrants who pose a threat to public safety or national security."
That's not what this is about and you know it! Using prosecutorial discretion to prioritize deportations is nowhere near the same thing as issuing documents legalizing 5 million illegal aliens.
The position Judge Hanen takes is the exact same position President Obama has taken in the past:
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”
That's not what this is about and you know it! Using prosecutorial discretion to prioritize deportations is nowhere near the same thing as issuing documents legalizing 5 million illegal aliens.
The position Judge Hanen takes is the exact same position President Obama has taken in the past:
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”
4
Russ in OR. Perhaps you should check your facts. Obama is not trying to legalize illegal aliens. He is deferring deportation nothing more, nothing less.
I believe one of the commenters meant to say that 82% of *Republicans* (not "Americans") oppose the President's executive action on immigration. See Pew Research Center site: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/11/immigration-action-gets-mixed-res...
3
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting).
2
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the Dred Scott decision, here is the Wikipedia summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Basically, it says that if slavery is legal then a slave living as a free man in the north still is owned by a man in the south.
Our current immigration system, much like slavery, fails to honor the dignity of each person and the potential of each person to contribute to America. When the Southern Democrats abandoned their more than century of bigotry in the 1960s, the Republicans eagerly rushed in to claim the votes of bigots and haters. How low that once great party has sunk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Basically, it says that if slavery is legal then a slave living as a free man in the north still is owned by a man in the south.
Our current immigration system, much like slavery, fails to honor the dignity of each person and the potential of each person to contribute to America. When the Southern Democrats abandoned their more than century of bigotry in the 1960s, the Republicans eagerly rushed in to claim the votes of bigots and haters. How low that once great party has sunk.
2
The southern democrats didn't abandon bigotry, they abandoned the Democratic Party. Now we have southern republican bigots and fascists, who largely seem to be ignorant of this country's history and their reliance on the "kindness of strangers", by whom I mean the Northern and Western and Coastal areas that supply them with their welfare checks.
1
The "failure to secure the border" has gone on for as long as there has been a southern border. It's been porous forever. Why waste scarce resources on attempts to secure it when doing so is impossible. Let Texas secure its own southern border if its governor dislikes the new enforcement policies.
I agree with your statement about the border being porous for many years, but that is no excuse to not enforce laws just because 100% of violators will not be caught. I do not see any push from Congress to allow amnesty for other crimes, so illegal immigration should be treated the same way.
I recall the Governor of Arizona attempted to get tough on illegals in her state a few years back, and the whaling and gnashing of teeth was so great that she and her state were painted as evil by the media and some in the judicial. To say the Governor of Texas should worry about his border but give no mention of previous attempts glosses over prior efforts.
I recall the Governor of Arizona attempted to get tough on illegals in her state a few years back, and the whaling and gnashing of teeth was so great that she and her state were painted as evil by the media and some in the judicial. To say the Governor of Texas should worry about his border but give no mention of previous attempts glosses over prior efforts.
1
"That move — which Mr. Obama took only after years of failed efforts by Congress to pass any immigration reform"
Most laws stay in effect year after year. Keeping the status quo is a choice congress makes all the time.
A very good case can be made that it is not our laws that are broken, it is there enforcement / execution.
John
Most laws stay in effect year after year. Keeping the status quo is a choice congress makes all the time.
A very good case can be made that it is not our laws that are broken, it is there enforcement / execution.
John
4
It is not a choice that the Congress made. It is a choice that John Boehner made. I bipartisan majority in the Senate passed an immigration bill. Boehner refused to let the House vote on it. Let me repeat that: he didn't vote no, the House didn't vote no, Boehner just refused to let my Congressman vote because there was a good chance that even in the badly gerrymandered House that gave him the Speakership representing a minority of the voters, the immigration bill might have passed. There is ONE person who left us in our current mess: John Boehner.
4
Lynn,
I have never liked it when one house of congress will not vote on a Bill bassed the other. Reid has done this as well. The constitution does not seem to require one house to bring to a vote, a bill that has passed the other. Perhaps it should.
John
I have never liked it when one house of congress will not vote on a Bill bassed the other. Reid has done this as well. The constitution does not seem to require one house to bring to a vote, a bill that has passed the other. Perhaps it should.
John
The fact that a federal judge pulled such an unthinkable unconstitutional act should result in his removal from office.
The fact that judges have pulled two major pranks this week suggests that they feel that public ignorance of the constitution is so great (e.g., the Governor of Texas), that most people will just consider it average legal trickery ... as opposed to what it really is.
The fact that judges have pulled two major pranks this week suggests that they feel that public ignorance of the constitution is so great (e.g., the Governor of Texas), that most people will just consider it average legal trickery ... as opposed to what it really is.
1
How, exactly, is it an "unthinkable unconstitutional act" for a federal judge to rule that granting legal status to persons whom the law (INA) mandates "shall" be removed?
The judge's opinion carefully distinguishes between prosecutorial discretion, which is the choice not to deport these people, which he says is fine, and legalization to include granting work permits and the right to drivers licenses, which is a very different thing.
Choosing not to prosecute someone is a very different thing from an affirmative grant of immigration benefits, which DHS may do only under specific circumstances (which even DHS admits have not been met). Accordingly, the administration needs persuade Congress to amend the law.
The judge's opinion carefully distinguishes between prosecutorial discretion, which is the choice not to deport these people, which he says is fine, and legalization to include granting work permits and the right to drivers licenses, which is a very different thing.
Choosing not to prosecute someone is a very different thing from an affirmative grant of immigration benefits, which DHS may do only under specific circumstances (which even DHS admits have not been met). Accordingly, the administration needs persuade Congress to amend the law.
How is it 'unthinkable"?
Because this judge's peculiar insistence that the Executive had failed to observe the coments and notice period required in the Administrative Powers Act is not based on anything but air. If the State were objecting to an executive administrative change that directly impacted a State power permitted under the Constitution, then perhaps. Immigration and border control is not, and never has been, a State power. The judge "faked it".
Because this judge's peculiar insistence that the Executive had failed to observe the coments and notice period required in the Administrative Powers Act is not based on anything but air. If the State were objecting to an executive administrative change that directly impacted a State power permitted under the Constitution, then perhaps. Immigration and border control is not, and never has been, a State power. The judge "faked it".
The story is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration.
You know, the Times' bias in this area is so obvious that I question the accuracy and inclusiveness of your reporting.
You know, the Times' bias in this area is so obvious that I question the accuracy and inclusiveness of your reporting.
10
This is as poorly thought out as the Affordable Care Act, and THAT at least had the benefit of being legislation. (The ACA raised premiums for those already insured while reducing their benefits, to subsidize premiums for those not yet insured. Those newly insured under the ACA are awaking to find that the $3000 deductible and attendant co-pays keep them from accessing care even though insured. And the costs of the widely increased Medicaid enrollment have not yet come home to roost.)
In immigration, seeking to document millions of illegal entrants who have used multiple aliases and tax numbers (if they paid taxes) PLUS entitle them to a three-year retroactive window of earned-income tax credit based on little or no documentation is any rational bureaucrat's nightmare.
The state and local entities supporting the action do so for political and budget reasons, as much of the costs of these new temporary residents will be shifted to the federal taxpayers.
In immigration, seeking to document millions of illegal entrants who have used multiple aliases and tax numbers (if they paid taxes) PLUS entitle them to a three-year retroactive window of earned-income tax credit based on little or no documentation is any rational bureaucrat's nightmare.
The state and local entities supporting the action do so for political and budget reasons, as much of the costs of these new temporary residents will be shifted to the federal taxpayers.
4
"...Republicans, who responded with threats of, among other things, impeachment proceedings." I'm surprised the Republicans didn't try to impeach Obama for not wearing a necktie. The dogs bark, the caravan rolls on.
1
Once again, little children, these are not "undocumented immigrants", they are foreign criminals, and, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, "we do not allow criminals, or their children, however deserving, to keep the usufructs of their crimes".
Car thieves are not allowed to gift the stolen vehicles to their children, bank robbers are not encouraged to fund their children's 529 plans with banknotes plundered from the local Savings and Loan. Looters are not free to endow their offspring with iPhones and wide screen TVs.
And these people who, by their very presence in this nation, are criminals, are not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to our fellow citizens, particularly those whose ancestors arrived in the holds of slave ships and spent a few generations in conditions which most third world inhabitants would consider inhumane.
Like it or not, Esteemed Board, this is a zero sum game. There are a finite number of grapes to be picked, a limited number of cars to be washed and a fixed acreage of lawns to be mowed.
Someone has to do it, and if that someone is working under the radar, not paying taxes, not receiving legal wages and benefits, someone else is out of a entry level job and that someone is an American citizen.
Repent
Car thieves are not allowed to gift the stolen vehicles to their children, bank robbers are not encouraged to fund their children's 529 plans with banknotes plundered from the local Savings and Loan. Looters are not free to endow their offspring with iPhones and wide screen TVs.
And these people who, by their very presence in this nation, are criminals, are not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded to our fellow citizens, particularly those whose ancestors arrived in the holds of slave ships and spent a few generations in conditions which most third world inhabitants would consider inhumane.
Like it or not, Esteemed Board, this is a zero sum game. There are a finite number of grapes to be picked, a limited number of cars to be washed and a fixed acreage of lawns to be mowed.
Someone has to do it, and if that someone is working under the radar, not paying taxes, not receiving legal wages and benefits, someone else is out of a entry level job and that someone is an American citizen.
Repent
4
Humane is not the issue. The issue is whether it's legal.
3
Most Americans need only look back a few generations to find their own illegality.
1
Immigration is a wedge issue between the Republican Party's fat cat wing and its yahoo wing. What they need to solve that problem is somebody who's really effective at deception ... somebody who can sell one policy to the foaming mouth crowd and deliver something different to the rich backers.
I'm thinking maybe a Bush. What do y'all think?
I'm thinking maybe a Bush. What do y'all think?
1
Judge Hanen, who has long demonstrated his hatred for illegal immigrants, can't bring himself to say with a straight face that the Executive Order was unconstitutional overreach. He finds that the Obama Administration failed to comply with the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act! OMG!
On learning of this failure to follow the notice and comment procedures the former Attorney General (now Governor) screams "Unconstitutional." Does Texas not require its AG's to be lawyers?
On learning of this failure to follow the notice and comment procedures the former Attorney General (now Governor) screams "Unconstitutional." Does Texas not require its AG's to be lawyers?
1
Oh, the deliciously transparent irony of it all! The same editorial page that praises the federal judges who overturn state laws relating to the definition of marriage now decries the exercise of the very same power when it cuts against the grain of its preferences du jour. I understand your outrage. Can we just agree to stop pretending that it's "moral," that it's anything other than personal or situational?
3
"Elections have consequences". That a clear majority of voting Americans do not want the type of amnesty that the President has in mind cannot, with a straight face, be doubted at this point. Obama, in pandering to his base just as hard as he can, has done what he could to thwart the will of the majority of voting Americans by taking this executive action. Liberals are shocked that the republicans are doing everything they can to implement the clear will of the majority of voting Americans by trying to block this executive action? A majority of Americans do not want "reform" because they know that is code for amnesty, or something very like amnesty. Liberals have decried for years on these message boards those dastardly republicans who were trying to thwart the will of a majority of Americans, why the faux outrage when republicans try to stop Obama from doing the same? My challenge: liberals agree to pick up the tab in its entirety for all direct and indirect costs of open borders, until then stop trying to spend my tax dollars to try to assuage your guilt about illegal immigration.
3
"Pandering to his base" is a twisted slant on this humane decision by the president. These r real humans with real lives and potential contribution to our economy and society. They could not be here w/o "American business" giving them underpaid jobs.
1
You can't say that "Republicans have no meaningful solutions" to illegal immigration. Mitt Romney proposed "self-deportation" which would presumably occur as undocumented immigrants would be locked out of jobs, housing, education, healthcare, financial services and travel. There are already some restrictions of this kind; the way Mitt and similarly minded Republicans might ensure compliance would be to impose draconian mandatory criminal penalties on anyone who aided such immigrants to survive in our country -- sort of like the fugitive slave laws preceding the Civil War. To his credit, Newt Gingrich disagreed, which may be one reason he was denied the Republican presidential nomination.
2
I never supported Romney, but his is the only sensible solution to illegal immigration: self-deportation through lock-out. I would add one additional step: the "illegals" here in hiding currently send back to their home countries over ONE BILLION DOLLARS every year. ONE BILLION lost to our economy. EVERY YEAR. That amount is greater than the annual budgets of 26 of our states. This must be stopped, whether the rest of the ideas are implemented or not. If that can be prevented, most "illegals" would have no reason to be here......
Impotent Republican rage, once again. When reason and logic fail, there's always vituperative rage, an abundant natural resource, natural to the Republican block(heads) who have no real time, earth-bound solutions. They are playing perfectly into Obama's hands, making them look like racist snobs just before a major election. Will they ever learn?
4
You were doing fine with your editorial until the last paragraph when you revealed your bias against Republicans in general. Note that 26 states do not agree with the President's one-man directive, not the Republican party in particular. As a liberal voter, I too side with the those that oppose general amnesty. Illegal aliens are illegally here and that cannot be ignored.
3
"This is a nation of immigrants"...can't argue that point. These same immigrants drafted a set of rules on which this country was to be governed (the Constitution). It has been amended several times to address problems or issues that arise or need to be fixed.
It also spells out the powers that each branch of gov't has. Congress shall make the laws. Executive branch will enforce the laws passed. And the courts will interpret the laws.
We have laws on the books..it is now time for the Executive branch to enforce existing laws. I have seen no one say that deporting illegals is against the law, just that it "would cost too much". I would be willing to bet that if some think-tank or research group did a financial study of the costs to deport all who are caught here illegally and to shut down and secure the border, compare it to the cost of making those illegals "legal" with any benefits that might come their way (education, healthcare to name a couple) in the future, the first option would be cheaper. Short term pain (we are already so far in debt we will never get out!) versus long term gain.
Am I being harsh? You bet! I travel all over the country and see poor citizens, Native Americans and Vets living in poverty with poor services. Let's take care of our citizens first and let other countries get their own houses in order, not on the backs of our citizens!
It also spells out the powers that each branch of gov't has. Congress shall make the laws. Executive branch will enforce the laws passed. And the courts will interpret the laws.
We have laws on the books..it is now time for the Executive branch to enforce existing laws. I have seen no one say that deporting illegals is against the law, just that it "would cost too much". I would be willing to bet that if some think-tank or research group did a financial study of the costs to deport all who are caught here illegally and to shut down and secure the border, compare it to the cost of making those illegals "legal" with any benefits that might come their way (education, healthcare to name a couple) in the future, the first option would be cheaper. Short term pain (we are already so far in debt we will never get out!) versus long term gain.
Am I being harsh? You bet! I travel all over the country and see poor citizens, Native Americans and Vets living in poverty with poor services. Let's take care of our citizens first and let other countries get their own houses in order, not on the backs of our citizens!
79
If you think that deporting 11 million people will mean the congress will get to work on the Veterans Adm. or infrastructure spending, or any of the other things that have needed doing the last couple dozen years, you have obviously not been paying attention.
Or you have visited one of Colorado's fine pot shops.
Or you have visited one of Colorado's fine pot shops.
1
I believe 250 Million Americans were native born and therefore are not immigrants. By your definition all people in all the world all immigrants. Kind of makes the definition of "immigrant" useless if we define it your way.
Make that legal immigrants.
"What he did not do was dispute the president’s broad authority to decide whom to deport, which is exactly what the Obama administration did in prioritizing the removal of immigrants who pose a threat to public safety or national security."
Thanks, NYT Editorial Board, for clarifying the nature of Hanen's ruling, despite Abbott's cry of glee about impeachment.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
This is always the crux of the matter, isn't it? Rage with no action. Attacks with no alternatives. Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
The new Republican majority has certainly gotten off to a fantastic start in proving, in the words of McConnell, that they can govern. It almost looks as if everything in the new Congressional term will be an attempt to rollback something the President has done in the past 6 years.
OK, I know it's a state ruling, but whatever: the fact remains that these local suits wouldn't be needed if the last Congress had acted on bipartisan legislation that sat on Boehner's desk for almost 3 full years.
Bring on the next court case on this, now that Hanen has spoken. As always, the courts will decide what the legislature is unwilling to do, or face.
Thanks, NYT Editorial Board, for clarifying the nature of Hanen's ruling, despite Abbott's cry of glee about impeachment.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
This is always the crux of the matter, isn't it? Rage with no action. Attacks with no alternatives. Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
The new Republican majority has certainly gotten off to a fantastic start in proving, in the words of McConnell, that they can govern. It almost looks as if everything in the new Congressional term will be an attempt to rollback something the President has done in the past 6 years.
OK, I know it's a state ruling, but whatever: the fact remains that these local suits wouldn't be needed if the last Congress had acted on bipartisan legislation that sat on Boehner's desk for almost 3 full years.
Bring on the next court case on this, now that Hanen has spoken. As always, the courts will decide what the legislature is unwilling to do, or face.
104
aaaah, no this is a FEDERAL ruling.
1
The president may have the authority to focus deportation efforts on illegal immigrants who commit felonies, but he does not have the authority to grant immunity or legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. Congress, not the executive office, makes immigration law.
"As always, the courts will decide what the legislature is unwilling to do, or face."
You need to get some schooling. The only reason we have had this flurry of court activity is because Obama's legacy is mostly illegal. Other presidents were able to work with opponents and not resort to my way or the highway approach. Bush Sr. issued EOs on immigration AFTER confering with Congress and getting agreement on what needed to be passed. Only Obama seems to have this problem.
You need to get some schooling. The only reason we have had this flurry of court activity is because Obama's legacy is mostly illegal. Other presidents were able to work with opponents and not resort to my way or the highway approach. Bush Sr. issued EOs on immigration AFTER confering with Congress and getting agreement on what needed to be passed. Only Obama seems to have this problem.
Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy,
-----------------------------
You think it humane and realistic. That is your opinion. It is however, illegal and that is a fact. The judge ruled that where it to go forward there would be no way to undo it therefore he granted the injunction. That is the law. It is bad enough you applaud Obama when he breaks laws but you want everyone else to join in.
-----------------------------
You think it humane and realistic. That is your opinion. It is however, illegal and that is a fact. The judge ruled that where it to go forward there would be no way to undo it therefore he granted the injunction. That is the law. It is bad enough you applaud Obama when he breaks laws but you want everyone else to join in.
4
In 2012, Congress voted and defeated the DREAM Act. The next year, the president ignored that fact passed the act by executive action. In 2014, Congress chose not to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Last year, just weeks before a new Congress would be seated, the president again chose to defy Congress's expressed wish and accomplished his desired reform by fiat. Who is playing politics here?
2
" In 2014, Congress chose not to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
No, they did not. The Senate passed a BIPARTISAN bill. Boehner refused to allow the House to vote on the bill because there was a good chance that it would have passed and become law. SO: the CONGRESS did not decide, Boehner decided. The Congress would have passed the bill.
No, they did not. The Senate passed a BIPARTISAN bill. Boehner refused to allow the House to vote on the bill because there was a good chance that it would have passed and become law. SO: the CONGRESS did not decide, Boehner decided. The Congress would have passed the bill.
1
Lynn, how many bills passed by the House but were not allowed to come to a vote by Harry Reid. Do you object to that also?
The rationale, that because Republicans don't have a better plan to deal with illegals we should just give them amnesty, is flawed at best. It’s like saying if nobody else can figure out a way to get rid of the bathwater without the baby, we should just throw the baby away.
The president’s policy is wrong, and should be overturned because not only does it reward lawbreakers, it discourages legal immigration, it belittles the efforts of those who earned citizenship, and it further saturates an oversaturated job market.
Those who lean left are fond of saying that illegals do the jobs Americans won’t, but they are only willing to take these sub-minimum wage jobs because they’re here illegally.
With amnesty, millions will no longer have to settle for third-world conditions - a good thing, in theory, but in practice it will mean an instant spike in the workforce, which, in turn, could overwhelm programs providing security for the unemployed.
Finally, the Washington Times reported that the president’s plan would provide illegals with SSNs and driver’s licenses, the very credentials necessary for voter registration, and though it would be illegal for them to vote, registrars lack the capability to vet their citizenship. A cynic might see this amnesty plan as a Democratic plot to funnel blocs of grateful voters into districts who traditionally vote Republican.
As for solutions, we could reduce illegal immigration substantially if we imposed huge fines on anyone hiring them.
The president’s policy is wrong, and should be overturned because not only does it reward lawbreakers, it discourages legal immigration, it belittles the efforts of those who earned citizenship, and it further saturates an oversaturated job market.
Those who lean left are fond of saying that illegals do the jobs Americans won’t, but they are only willing to take these sub-minimum wage jobs because they’re here illegally.
With amnesty, millions will no longer have to settle for third-world conditions - a good thing, in theory, but in practice it will mean an instant spike in the workforce, which, in turn, could overwhelm programs providing security for the unemployed.
Finally, the Washington Times reported that the president’s plan would provide illegals with SSNs and driver’s licenses, the very credentials necessary for voter registration, and though it would be illegal for them to vote, registrars lack the capability to vet their citizenship. A cynic might see this amnesty plan as a Democratic plot to funnel blocs of grateful voters into districts who traditionally vote Republican.
As for solutions, we could reduce illegal immigration substantially if we imposed huge fines on anyone hiring them.
3
"Assault"? How about "Federal Judge Upholds the Law and the Constitution". Why is the NYT and our President so intent on abrogating our laws and our responsibilities? Is there any chance at all that somewhere hidden within the walls of the Grey Lady there is at least one courageous reporter that can find out for us why our leaders Democrat and Republican find it so necessary to flood this country with uneducated foreigners?
6
Good for you independent. You're right on.
Law are made by humans, and can be unmade.
In 1776, there was a dispute about some law or other,as I recall. On one side were those who said "The law is the law". On the other side there were those that said, "This is a bad law, and we will not obey it."
Suppose those on the side of "upholding the law and constitution" that governed the colonies had prevailed?
In 1776, there was a dispute about some law or other,as I recall. On one side were those who said "The law is the law". On the other side there were those that said, "This is a bad law, and we will not obey it."
Suppose those on the side of "upholding the law and constitution" that governed the colonies had prevailed?
Conservative responses to NYT editorials are typically filled with such vitriol and distortion of facts or few facts at all.
1. President Obama has every authority by law to issue executive orders and has issued fewer than any president since Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Two of the last three GOP presidents issued executive orders regarding immigration - Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush - did the same thing in extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
3. President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him.
4. Georgia and Alabama toughened their immigration laws and in Georgia crops lay rotting in the fields when the laws were first enacted. The agriculture sector has just returned to some form of stability, once it became apparent that the laws were not readily or easily enforced.
And, in regards to the disgust toward liberals, this country and its democracy were founded by liberals. The conservatives of the day wanted to stay with England. And, at the time, every one, excluding Native Americans, was an immigrant.
1. President Obama has every authority by law to issue executive orders and has issued fewer than any president since Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Two of the last three GOP presidents issued executive orders regarding immigration - Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush - did the same thing in extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
3. President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president before him.
4. Georgia and Alabama toughened their immigration laws and in Georgia crops lay rotting in the fields when the laws were first enacted. The agriculture sector has just returned to some form of stability, once it became apparent that the laws were not readily or easily enforced.
And, in regards to the disgust toward liberals, this country and its democracy were founded by liberals. The conservatives of the day wanted to stay with England. And, at the time, every one, excluding Native Americans, was an immigrant.
1
Regarding your points:
1. Of course he has authority to issue executive orders. I have the right to own a gun. But neither have authority to misuse our rights.
2. Reagan and Bush's orders occurred after Congress had expanded immigration in 1986 and 1990. Obama, however, expanded immigration after Congress had specifically rejected the DREAM Act in 2012 and refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2014.
3. The deportation numbesr in the Obama administration are inflated due to a change in counting methodology. When old methods are used, his numbers are much lower. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.ht....
4. The bulk of the AL and GA laws are still in place, yet employers learned how to comply. Note that you are still receiving your peaches and vidalia onions?
1. Of course he has authority to issue executive orders. I have the right to own a gun. But neither have authority to misuse our rights.
2. Reagan and Bush's orders occurred after Congress had expanded immigration in 1986 and 1990. Obama, however, expanded immigration after Congress had specifically rejected the DREAM Act in 2012 and refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2014.
3. The deportation numbesr in the Obama administration are inflated due to a change in counting methodology. When old methods are used, his numbers are much lower. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.ht....
4. The bulk of the AL and GA laws are still in place, yet employers learned how to comply. Note that you are still receiving your peaches and vidalia onions?
Reagan signed an amnesty bill passed by Congress. Bush issued an executive order that extended the amnesty to a small number of people who had been inadvertently omitted from the amnesty bill. He did so knowing that Congress fully approved of the extension. The executive order was in effect for a few months until Congress pass legislation to extend the amnesty to the people covered by the executive order. Neither Reagan or Bush act unilaterally and neither created their own amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
Scratch beneath the surface just a bit to find the illogic of this editorial. It's hilarious, for example, that Chicago is a signatory to a statement ringing the praises of the economic boon that illegal aliens somehow bestow. Chicago Public Schools are running huge deficits. Mayor Emmauel even has the audacity to cite "public safety" as a benefit. Chicago is the national leader in death by gun violence, much directly tied to illegals with direct ties to Mexican drug cartels.
The Times also makes the wild claim that the U.S. constitution guarantees we provide an education to the children of illegal aliens but fails to say how.
Silly.
The Times also makes the wild claim that the U.S. constitution guarantees we provide an education to the children of illegal aliens but fails to say how.
Silly.
2
The Constitution does not require states to admit illegal immigrant to public schools. The Fourteenth Amendment says that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In 1957, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that public schools most admit illegal immigrants because "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." Of course, the distinction between lawful and unlawful residency seems entirely plausible to most people. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that illegal or illegal aliens within U.S. jurisdiction can be treated differently than U.S. citizens. For example, they cannot vote or work without a permit. However, the debate is not whether U.S public schools most admit legal immigrants; it’s whether illegal immigrants should be permitted to remain in the United States.
On a practical level, I fail to see why Republicans oppose making illegal immigrants citizens, who in a few years will get mortgages, buy homes, become angry about taxes and, of course, then become more conservative and vote Republican.
I am 3rd generation American. My great grandparents arrived in the 1880s and 1890s. They came from Russia, Hungary, and Germany. The didn't speak English and they were penniless. Thank god they didn't land in Texas. Another part of the family also came from Russia, barely escaping the Pogroms. That Lady, Mrs. Engleman watched as the Cossacks slaughtered her younger sister and threw her on a pile of bodies in the streets. A member of the Siegel family died of a heart attack at Victoria Station waiting for train to Dover. His body was left behind. Today our 4th generation American children are very successful as an IP lawyer in organic chemistry, a school principal and college professor, another has a master's degree in speech pathology and works with autistic children, and two more have master's degrees in communications and social sciences. My brothers and sister and I have college and post-graduate degrees, from Penn State, American, Boston and Berkeley. My sister also attended Harvard. My son is graduate of the University of PA and the Beasley School of Law. My sister's daughter just earned her doctor of dental science. Her husband is an eye doctor. All this from great grandparents that didn't even speak English and arrived with only the clothes they wore. One set of grandparents didn't learn English until they attended public school and spoke only Yiddish until age 5. If the immigration policies of the 1800s were the same as today I doubt any of us would be here.
4
were they illegal?
Your family has an impressive history Jay and you should be proud of your ancestors and living relatives.
In 1880, there were few options for mandatory public school, no Social Security or Medicare, no disability insurance, health care was difficult to obtain in rural areas, there were no food stamps, or housing subsidies from the government, or income tax refunds in the form of EITC. I do not doubt communities helped many families who struggled to make it as immigrants until they got on their feet but the help was not state or federally supported.
Today, there exists a bevy of federal and state operated assistance programs who will support any citizen who needs them. I am not opposed to these programs. I am opposed to an open border situation similar to what currently exists where a pregnant woman can cross the Rio Grande, birth a child in the US, and that child immediately qualifies for every benefit of citizens who have been here for generations. Now that adult, who knowingly broke the law, claims they "must" be allowed to stay and our elected officials seem determined to make it happen. Illegal immigrants should be sent packing by force if necessary and required to begin the process for legal citizenship if they wish to enter the US.
In 1880, there were few options for mandatory public school, no Social Security or Medicare, no disability insurance, health care was difficult to obtain in rural areas, there were no food stamps, or housing subsidies from the government, or income tax refunds in the form of EITC. I do not doubt communities helped many families who struggled to make it as immigrants until they got on their feet but the help was not state or federally supported.
Today, there exists a bevy of federal and state operated assistance programs who will support any citizen who needs them. I am not opposed to these programs. I am opposed to an open border situation similar to what currently exists where a pregnant woman can cross the Rio Grande, birth a child in the US, and that child immediately qualifies for every benefit of citizens who have been here for generations. Now that adult, who knowingly broke the law, claims they "must" be allowed to stay and our elected officials seem determined to make it happen. Illegal immigrants should be sent packing by force if necessary and required to begin the process for legal citizenship if they wish to enter the US.
1
If your ancestors had landed in Texas, they probably would have joined the German and Czech colonists who populated the Texas Hill Country. They came to Texas directly from Germany and Czechoslovakia and fought for the Texas Republic during the Texas Revolution. German Americans are the largest ethnic group in Texas derived directly from Europe. Intermarriage has blurred ethnic lines, but the 1990 United States census revealed that 1,175,888 Texans claimed pure and 1,775,838 partial German ancestry, for a total of 2,951,726, or 17½ percent of the total population. By this count, Germans rank behind Hispanics and form the third-largest national-origin group in the state.
1
I find it interesting that on most subjects which would generally break along party lines, the comments by NYT readers seem to fall w the Dems. However, when the NYT publishes an article abt immigration reform, the comments appear to fall to the more conservative side. Perhaps, that tells us something abt how people as a whole feel abt this issue.
3
Judges have become more so "politicians in robes" adding to the malaise that now defines American democracy. Given our pervading divisiveness driven in part by entertainment news, there seems to be no end in sight for bad governance. Wonder what emerging "democracies" think of our model?
1
There's a false narrative that is perpetuated by media that this administration has not secured borders. How bizarre! Deportation numbers have hardly changed since the Bush era. And if borders were actually not secured, things would be very different in the border states.
It's time to open our eyes and look at reality rather than Hannity.
It's time to open our eyes and look at reality rather than Hannity.
3
Go to the border regions and tell us that they are sealed.
Another tired effort by the republicans to have their cake and to it eat it.
The republicans are comfortable with illegal aliens they can exploit as cheap labor to keep American wages down, but by not addressing real immigration policy, They can also deny benefits to the immigrants.
Obama acted as any decent person occupying his office might have, given the republican intransigence to facing reality.
The real test now is to see if the rest of America can force congress to either set forth a comprehensive plan on immigration we can all live with or to watch congress continue on with its fruitless effort " to keep doing nothing".
The republicans are comfortable with illegal aliens they can exploit as cheap labor to keep American wages down, but by not addressing real immigration policy, They can also deny benefits to the immigrants.
Obama acted as any decent person occupying his office might have, given the republican intransigence to facing reality.
The real test now is to see if the rest of America can force congress to either set forth a comprehensive plan on immigration we can all live with or to watch congress continue on with its fruitless effort " to keep doing nothing".
1
The Administration should enforce the border security law enacted by Congress. By ignoring the law and by actively facilitating illegal activity - the smuggling of illegal aliens into the country - the Administration has undermined the law, derogated its duty and threatened our national security.
2
Once again the gospel of political failure and a theology of ignorance runs strong among those who refuse to engage in solutions to the real problems that vex our country,using contrived legalisms to subvert the will of a vast majority of the people in this country
2
Not only is a sane immigration policy under attack. Also under attack is the principle of an independent judiciary. This situation has all the earmarks of a set-up, in which 26 state Attorney Generals -- with advice from ALEC -- specifically sought out this particular judge, knowing in advance that he would obstruct implementation of the President's plan.
There is bias in every pursuit and profession. When it rears its ugly head in the federal judiciary, another bedrock principle of representative government is weakened.
There is bias in every pursuit and profession. When it rears its ugly head in the federal judiciary, another bedrock principle of representative government is weakened.
8
The President should not legislate on his own. It is part of his job description to take his ideas to Congress and work, or hammer, out a consensus solution. I'm not a Republican, but this Texas Republican judge has done America a favor by slowing down the legislative process and hopefully returning the Immigration bill to Congress to work it out with the President. The President campaigned six years and some months ago on the premise he would not act alone but reach out to Republicans. It's time for him to live up to that promise. The sooner this Immigration bill returns to Congress, the better for the country.
80
Slowing down the legislative process? There is no legislative process in this political climate.
4
while i agree in principle to your point, the reality is that the republicans are unwilling and /or incapable of coming up with a solution to a very pressing problem. If their solution is self deportation, as was proposed by Romney during the last presidential campaign, then America is in deep trouble.
2
Let me be sure I've got this correct. The President should, in good faith, negotiate this immigration legislation with Congress when everyone understands that Congress has no intention of passing any immigration legislation that the President proposes during his remain term of office? Is that what you are proposing?
2
Many people have become convinced that enforcement of immigration laws--or just having immigration laws--is a human rights violation.
Ten years ago, nobody thought this.
The change in attitudes is the result, in large part, of the hundreds of millions spent on public relations and lobbying on behalf of illegal immigrants.
Ten years ago, nobody thought this.
The change in attitudes is the result, in large part, of the hundreds of millions spent on public relations and lobbying on behalf of illegal immigrants.
9
Got any facts.
It's about time. I am a liberal Democrat who voted twice for Obama.
However, he has truly gone overboard on legalizing the illegals.
Some towns, cities and states are broke because they have to actually raise the children of illegals. Food stamps, health care, subsidized housing, education (in two languages) have become the burden of the taxpayer citizens and there is no relief. I would even go a step further and insist that in order for a child born in the US to become a citizen, one parent MUST be a US citizen.
However, he has truly gone overboard on legalizing the illegals.
Some towns, cities and states are broke because they have to actually raise the children of illegals. Food stamps, health care, subsidized housing, education (in two languages) have become the burden of the taxpayer citizens and there is no relief. I would even go a step further and insist that in order for a child born in the US to become a citizen, one parent MUST be a US citizen.
13
President Obama affirmed 22 times that he did not have executive authority to alter immigration law, however when he took his recent executive action, he contradicted himself and then in November 2014, he stated openly that "I just took action to change the law."
I favor action by the United States Congress to admit illegal aliens to our country, but I also agree with the President's 22 affirmations, i.e. that he does not have the authority to change the law. If the American people want the law changed, the power to do so is vested with Congress; if Congress does not take action to support the will of the American people, representatives and senators will be voted out of office. This is how our democracy works!
As to the lawsuit, it is interesting that more than one-half of our States were parties to it, and while not knowing the intricate details of the suit, I wonder why 26 states would be a party to it if it were something irrelevant.
I favor action by the United States Congress to admit illegal aliens to our country, but I also agree with the President's 22 affirmations, i.e. that he does not have the authority to change the law. If the American people want the law changed, the power to do so is vested with Congress; if Congress does not take action to support the will of the American people, representatives and senators will be voted out of office. This is how our democracy works!
As to the lawsuit, it is interesting that more than one-half of our States were parties to it, and while not knowing the intricate details of the suit, I wonder why 26 states would be a party to it if it were something irrelevant.
5
OK, there is only one thing we can do that is completely fair. All of us who aren't 100% Native American need to go home. Then we all apply for legal immigration status with the government that is made up of the remaining population of the United States - might be a couple of thousand people. Then, those of us who meet the criteria set out by the government get to come back. Of course, a country with such a small population will have a hard time absorbing a whole bunch of free loaders so it might take a really long time
5
Shouldn't the native americans all go back to Russia across the Bering Strait.
So the gop is willing to errode the office of the President for whomever holds that office now and in the future because Texas is too cheap to issue driver's licenses to the "help"? I find it as disingenuous that the same people they expect to be invisible, silent until spoken to to serve them deeply ingrained in the economy AND also call them a security risk. Now they can't be both now can they? And besides, if they were dangerous, it's easier to keep tabs on people who are credentialed. No, this is all about sticking to to the president and to anyone else they can, like their gardner, waitress, or construction worker they pick up with no more commitment than for the next 8 hours. They like to give it coming and going. And are willing to degrade the most important political office in the world to do it.
1
Right on cue: The NYTs trashed a federal judge whom they disagree with because he followed Constitutinal law.
The only way this ruling will not be upheld is if the GOP funds Obama's lawlessness, this rendering this decision moot, as Congress' imprimatur is stamped on Obama's actions.
The only way this ruling will not be upheld is if the GOP funds Obama's lawlessness, this rendering this decision moot, as Congress' imprimatur is stamped on Obama's actions.
5
I remember a time when the New York Times editorial board hated such broad Presidential "discretion" to pick and choose what parts of laws to follow - oh yeah, it was during the George W. Bush administration and its use of "presidential signing statements." I remember a time when liberals like Paul Krugman were against immigration "reform" because of the documented impact on our most vulnerable. Oh yeah, it was during the George W. Bush administration and the original "amnesty first, then maybe partially secure the border" proposal (Kennedy-McCain). See a trend?
5
If there is even one United States citizen who can't find a job and is taking government handouts, then we don't need any illegal aliens here. Every time an illegal alien is arrested in the interior, ICE should be reporting the employer to the dept of Labor, who could then could then refer the next welfare recipient to his new job opening. As a nation, we should be endeavoring, to a man, to make life uncomfortable and unbearable for any illegal alien to try to make a living here, until our unemployment rate is 0%.
2
We all know current immigration policies don't work. A policy allowing law abiding and productive foreign nationals to gain the legal right to work in our country to support our economy would be a logical and ethical move. Republicans, seemingly at every level and branch of government, oppose such a policy.
Workers on our Southern border who lack documentation live lives in hiding. Their status is little better than slavery, given they can be "outed" and deported at the drop of a hat, but given the conditions in their native lands, life here is better than nothing.
Why the Republican Party opposes allowing a minimal legal status to these workers is a puzzle to me. The only reason I can conclude is that this right-less workforce; one that will work endless hours at below minimum wages, doing work that no citizen would consider, is valuable to some important people in the Party.
They need to be called out for what they are doing; they are supporting modern slavery, and insisting it be continued, when we have a solution in hand. Shame.
Workers on our Southern border who lack documentation live lives in hiding. Their status is little better than slavery, given they can be "outed" and deported at the drop of a hat, but given the conditions in their native lands, life here is better than nothing.
Why the Republican Party opposes allowing a minimal legal status to these workers is a puzzle to me. The only reason I can conclude is that this right-less workforce; one that will work endless hours at below minimum wages, doing work that no citizen would consider, is valuable to some important people in the Party.
They need to be called out for what they are doing; they are supporting modern slavery, and insisting it be continued, when we have a solution in hand. Shame.
1
You dont understand immigration obviously. Its not just minimal legal status and thats the rub. And furthermore, the immigration laws of this formerly great country are there to protect the CITIZENS OF THE US. They are not there to tear them down. Perhaps you are employed but there are many who are not. Theyve given up hope. And why.... partially because of illegals. Wage depression is because of illegals. So you are on the side of big corporations who do not want to pay a fair wage and employ AMERICANS. Why
What can we expect from a Bush appointed judge? This is just one of the reasons many people do not respects the judicial justice anymore. Judge Hansen uses the same language that I have heard from Republcians in congress, he did not use his own language; it is kind of like the bills written by ALEC and submitted by Republcians as their own. This is just sad.
4
What can we expect from a Bush judge???? Are you kidding me? It does not matter to you that over half of the states in the US believe this? It does not matter to you that there is at least 1 judge who rules on the applicability of current law as opposed to modifying it, distorting it, violating it? This judge did his job. Clearly you would rather cop out and blame it on Bush rather than look at the facts and laws of our formerly great nation. This TEMPORARY injunction is entirely appropriate so people like you cannot trounce on my rights and the rights of American citizens in violation of the law.
Respect for the judicial system means, first and foremost, respecting judicial decisions despite your disagreement with them. Dismissing a federal judge's decision as politically-motivated without a shred of proof, as you do, is the cause--not an explanation--of public disrespect for the judiciary. Thank God most of the American public doesn't share your views.
This is outrageous! Those poor undocumented workers want nothing more than to be given work permits so that they are recognized as human beings who are contributing to the economy of this country!
The only reason President Obama's actions are being attacked is because it is better for some businesses to have these people in subservient positions with no obligations as an employer! Ironically, these very people who are against President Obama's order are those very people who complain that there are undocumented workers in those country who pay nothing into the system. President Obama's order for legal status would move these people from the role of an illegal to a documented worker. Also, the order would provide a requirement of their payment of dollars to our treasury!
Even in the unlikely event, we could coordinate a mass exit from our country, we would spend huge amounts of money to do so! BTW, business is not going to allow that to happen; they need those works! And, what about the children born in this country! Are "they" afraid of the day when those children will be eligible to vote!
The only reason President Obama's actions are being attacked is because it is better for some businesses to have these people in subservient positions with no obligations as an employer! Ironically, these very people who are against President Obama's order are those very people who complain that there are undocumented workers in those country who pay nothing into the system. President Obama's order for legal status would move these people from the role of an illegal to a documented worker. Also, the order would provide a requirement of their payment of dollars to our treasury!
Even in the unlikely event, we could coordinate a mass exit from our country, we would spend huge amounts of money to do so! BTW, business is not going to allow that to happen; they need those works! And, what about the children born in this country! Are "they" afraid of the day when those children will be eligible to vote!
3
There is a legal channel to come to this country. No one is above the law.
At least one person in America is following the rule of law. Millions of people have come to the US legally and have thrived in this country. We cannot have a parallel system of illegal immigration. As a legal immigrant myself I wish to bring my parents, siblings and my whole family here. But I cannot do so till I get a citizenship after which it would take a couple years to bring my parents. About 15-20 years before my siblings and their families can get a green card. Now these illegal immigrants get to stay, get work permits, bring their families just because they are here for some time. This is insane. America is a nation of laws. We need the rule of law. We cannot pick and choose what laws we will enforce and what we can ignore. How about we ignore the IRS laws for a change?
10
The authors call the President's plan "humane and realistic". While his plan could certainly be labelled as somewhat "practical", it could only be considered realistic if he'd tried to find a way to get both parties to come together on a plan that doesn't disadvantage the states suffering the logistical and financial burden of the current state of affairs. I, for one, am tired of Presidents behaving like imperialists. In my view, he continues to divide the country at a time when there are huge opportunities to unite us. This simply looks like more pandering to buy Democratic votes; something he seems to be very adept at.
6
"A Judge’s Assault on Immigration."
Actually, it was the president's assault on our Constitution when he over stepped his authority. In fact, the President himself said on 3/28/11: "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."
Actually, it was the president's assault on our Constitution when he over stepped his authority. In fact, the President himself said on 3/28/11: "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."
30
This judge, whatever his name is, is a buffoon and so are you, Paul, if you'll allow me to be blunt for the sake of brevity. Assault on our Constitution? What about the assault on democracy and good sense the republicans have waged from the beginning of President Obama's tenor? If they had done their duty, even a small portion of it, an action of this sort wouldn't be necessary. Instead, they focused on making Obama a one term president to the exclusion of all else.
The actions of this judge, and those like him, will do nothing but cement Hillary Clinton's ascendance to the presidency. First a black man,who is thoughtful and can string together two coherent sentences, now a woman, what's this country coming to?
Finally, our senses.
The actions of this judge, and those like him, will do nothing but cement Hillary Clinton's ascendance to the presidency. First a black man,who is thoughtful and can string together two coherent sentences, now a woman, what's this country coming to?
Finally, our senses.
1
I do not see the problem. Let anyone in who wants to come. Just be one big & happy family.
1
If you are not unemployed or under-employed or don’t have family members or neighbors in that unfortunate status, you must be a member of the 1%. Your windows must overlook Central Park, Virginia horse country, etc. Most of the rest of us know someone who is among the 10 – 12 million unemployed, or the millions who work 2 or 3 part time jobs.
It appears Pres. Obama, VP Biden, and the Democrat leadership don’t know any of the millions who are affected by this recovering economy, the recovery that hasn't trickled down to those at/near the bottom……or the middle, who are affected as well.
On MSNBC and CNN this a.m., I watched a State Department rep, Marie Harf, whine that Muslim radicals just need jobs. So do millions of out-of-work Americans. VP Biden says Muslim radicals need R-E-S-P-E-C-T. So do millions of under-employed Americans. President Obama says we need to ‘invest’ in Muslim communities. Our own communities need investments that bring jobs.
President Obama intends to give work permits to 5,000,000 illegal immigrants with the stroke of a pen. He ignored the letter from US. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, who warned him and the Congressional Black Caucus that “(g)ranting work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants will devastate the black community, which is already struggling in the wake of the recession.”
Will he ignore the 30 million or more unemployed and under-employed, and the 100 million+ of us who know and care about them?
It appears Pres. Obama, VP Biden, and the Democrat leadership don’t know any of the millions who are affected by this recovering economy, the recovery that hasn't trickled down to those at/near the bottom……or the middle, who are affected as well.
On MSNBC and CNN this a.m., I watched a State Department rep, Marie Harf, whine that Muslim radicals just need jobs. So do millions of out-of-work Americans. VP Biden says Muslim radicals need R-E-S-P-E-C-T. So do millions of under-employed Americans. President Obama says we need to ‘invest’ in Muslim communities. Our own communities need investments that bring jobs.
President Obama intends to give work permits to 5,000,000 illegal immigrants with the stroke of a pen. He ignored the letter from US. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, who warned him and the Congressional Black Caucus that “(g)ranting work authorization to millions of illegal immigrants will devastate the black community, which is already struggling in the wake of the recession.”
Will he ignore the 30 million or more unemployed and under-employed, and the 100 million+ of us who know and care about them?
14
Ninety-two million Americans are not working and he wants to give work permits to five million illegals. Will he also find them jobs? Such math can only make sense in a the mind of an American liberal.
Regarding "the 30 million or more unemployed and under-employed", wihy aren't they cleaning hotel rooms, picking lettuce, cutting grass, etc.? Oh, right, that's beneath them. Have you noticed, btw, that the folks working in the local fast food stores are mostly black, not Latino. Where are the whites?
Also by the way, it's the Democratic party, not Democrat. Is that so hard for you to get right? It was taught to all of us in school.
Also by the way, it's the Democratic party, not Democrat. Is that so hard for you to get right? It was taught to all of us in school.
Keep shining that light, New York Times, and maybe average people will wake up to the "conservative" agenda to destroy democracy in America. The fact that one obviously socially challenged judge in Brownsville, TX can control our democracy is beyond the comprehension of most average Americans. This will cause more social unrest by those who thought they were going to gain some rights while they work and toil at the bottom of the economic ladder to take care of the food, homes and gardens of the wealthiest. The masters of the universe behind the ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate must be cracking open those $50,000 bottles of wine at the success of their financial coup to take over America.
http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/most-expensive-bottles-o...
http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/most-expensive-bottles-o...
32
IDK about a $50k bottle of wine, but this $7.50 bottle of prosecco to celebrate the rule of law and encouragement of all views to find the right one is pretty darn delicious.
Being from a state where my average-person, conservative vote almost never counts because of the massive liberal population around Seattle, I can't help but celebrate!
Being from a state where my average-person, conservative vote almost never counts because of the massive liberal population around Seattle, I can't help but celebrate!
4
Maybe "average people" are actually on to something, and it's you who needs to "wake up." From my experience, "average people" don't go around personally insulting people (much less sitting federal judges) as "socially challenged." That's what socially challenged people do.
3
One judge will not make a final decision as the govt has already indicated it will go to appellate court and probably then the Supreme Court. Better than the decision by one tyrant king Obama who disregards the law he said he could not violate only a few months back.
3
All this judge has done is motivate Latinos to come out in record numbers to vote for Hillary (or whoever gets the Democratic nomination) in November 2016.
Andy, you're doing a helluva job!
Andy, you're doing a helluva job!
24
Latinos have never voted in greater than nine percent in any national election. And even there at least 25 percent of latinos vote Republican.
blacks vote at 12 percent and 90 percent Democrat.
The question is not the Latino vote but will the black vote come out to support Hillary the way it supported Obama.
Here's a hint. Black unemployment under Obama is higher than illegal immigrant unemployment under Obama. So just how will Hillary motivate black voters who have lost jobs, homes and income under Obama?
Republicans are not sweating the 2016 elections they way you think they should. And, I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in 2007.
blacks vote at 12 percent and 90 percent Democrat.
The question is not the Latino vote but will the black vote come out to support Hillary the way it supported Obama.
Here's a hint. Black unemployment under Obama is higher than illegal immigrant unemployment under Obama. So just how will Hillary motivate black voters who have lost jobs, homes and income under Obama?
Republicans are not sweating the 2016 elections they way you think they should. And, I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Obama in 2007.
1
I am a Latino as you would label me but I would not vote for a Democrat. So save your prejudiced predictions for another day
2
Even if their voting is illegal right? That's what this is all about isn't it? Be honest.
2
There appears to be two sides to this issue.
Fortunately the federal government will bear the total burden.
Fortunately the federal government will bear the total burden.
No, the property tax payers in poor school districts will pay for the schooling of the children Obama has lured here with his illegal actions.
2
Tell that to all the states being overrun by illegal aliens in their jobs, schools, etc. I hope you're not as naive as your post sounds. Your handle suggests sarcasm...
At current funding levels authorized by the Congress, it would take just a little less than 40 years to deport all of the people that the laws passed by the Congress define as ''illegal immigrants.''
Without the resources to do the complete the job required by current laws, someone has to decide who will be deported and the President has decided to focus deportation on those who do not have attachment to the community, do not have children born here, and pose other risks.
The Congress has the duty, under the Constitution, to either provide the resources ($$$) to carry out its immigration policy (existing law) or change the policy (''pass a bill'') to require fewer resources. They can't seem to do either, or for that matter, anything reasonable.
With a dysfunctional Congress, our great democracy defaults to a slow motion struggle between the popularly-elected President and the appointed-for-life Federal judiciary.
Without the resources to do the complete the job required by current laws, someone has to decide who will be deported and the President has decided to focus deportation on those who do not have attachment to the community, do not have children born here, and pose other risks.
The Congress has the duty, under the Constitution, to either provide the resources ($$$) to carry out its immigration policy (existing law) or change the policy (''pass a bill'') to require fewer resources. They can't seem to do either, or for that matter, anything reasonable.
With a dysfunctional Congress, our great democracy defaults to a slow motion struggle between the popularly-elected President and the appointed-for-life Federal judiciary.
82
Unfortunately ClearEye, there's nothing in immigration law that allows the president to bestow benefits on illegal immigrants as he has done with his executive action.
Also like most democrats do with economics, you ignore the dynamic effects if the government began to start arresting and deporting illegals. When a sufficient number have been arrested and deported, others will get the message and leave before they get arrested. This occurred in the Eisenhower administration. He found out how many illegals were in the US so he ordered they be arrested and deported. 50,000 were arrested and deported. Millions of others got the message and left.
Also like most democrats do with economics, you ignore the dynamic effects if the government began to start arresting and deporting illegals. When a sufficient number have been arrested and deported, others will get the message and leave before they get arrested. This occurred in the Eisenhower administration. He found out how many illegals were in the US so he ordered they be arrested and deported. 50,000 were arrested and deported. Millions of others got the message and left.
1
Even if the president's intent was discretion in prosecution, that does not justify his promise of offering working papers to those in the U.S. illegally. Currently is it illegally to hire anyone in the U.S. illegally. So let's just get off this farce that the president was offering anything other then a bypass of law and a short term amnesty. That is exactly what Obama's EO entailed.
It is the White House that is dysfunctional in it's refusal to enforce U.S. immigration law and in fact, attempt to illegally rewrite the law- as explained above.
Well, that ship has sunk. A victory for the Constitution. A victory of our nation of laws and legal procedure.
Come legally and have no problems. Fifty percent of Latinos in Georgia are in the U.S. illegally.
Enough is enough.
It is the White House that is dysfunctional in it's refusal to enforce U.S. immigration law and in fact, attempt to illegally rewrite the law- as explained above.
Well, that ship has sunk. A victory for the Constitution. A victory of our nation of laws and legal procedure.
Come legally and have no problems. Fifty percent of Latinos in Georgia are in the U.S. illegally.
Enough is enough.
1
The president does not have the authority to grant them work permits and quasi legal status that allows them to receive federal and state benefits.
1
I support Judge Hanen's ruling and have firsthand experience as a Federal law enforcement officer whose agency's charge includes enforcing Title 8, United States Code [immigration law]. We who live in Chicago see the huge uptick in narcotics trafficking and drug gangs, that may be directly attributed to the equally massive uptick in illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America. It's past time to draw a line in the sand with this issue so destructive to our quality of life and start taking back our nation from these illegal usurpers and criminals, which is anyone who has remained in the United States without legal sanction. Brinksmanship games with my own Department of Homeland Security are also counterproductive, because why hamper our mission when we are responsible for enforcing immigration law? Let's avoid another absurd budgetary showdown in the Congress, shall we?
36
So you agree that we should deport the criminals and drug dealers first and leave the mothers and children for much later? Isn't that what the President is doing?
Those who embody the massive uptick you allude to are not the individuals to whom Obama's executive order is directed. They are parents of American citizens and have committed no crimes. Quite often they are employed, have deep roots in their community, and make positive contributions to their neighborhoods and society.
And what finances the drug gangs? America's prohibition of drugs that were sold over-the-counter until big pharma intervened in the early 20th century. What makes drug gangs rich was listed in the wholesale prices current section of major newspapers in the 19th century, and most of this country's history was lived out and created by people who had teethed on paregoric in their childhood.
Joining Judge Moore, Judge Hanen reveals ignorance of the First Amendment restrictions. Where religion enters the conversation in any context that impacts the entire nation, officials of the court should ponder the meaning of the Amendment. Can religion provide a narrative that limits the rights of anyone in our country?
The Supreme Court mistakenly conferred religious rights on Hobby Lobby that superseded the rights of real persons employed by that corporation. The Catholic Justices are somehow unaware of the meaning of the First Amendment. Hanen's narrative regarding immigrants illustrates his prejudice.
The Supreme Court mistakenly conferred religious rights on Hobby Lobby that superseded the rights of real persons employed by that corporation. The Catholic Justices are somehow unaware of the meaning of the First Amendment. Hanen's narrative regarding immigrants illustrates his prejudice.
18
ILLEGALS!! Not immigrants. The criminals need to go home. They will never be accepted. Take away the jobs, services and handouts and allow the ILLEGALS to walk back home with their kids in tow!!
3
If your in the country illegally... You don't have the same rights as citizens!! Do it legally and I will be the first to say welcome!
2
Judge Hanen did not mention religion in his ruling. However, America's illegal immigrant population is overwhelmingly Christian. What make you think religion played a role in the decision?
It's so funny to hear a judge in Texas, a state built by large numbers of German immigrants - remember the Adelsverein - , saying that immigration "endangers America". What should European countries argue facing a much bigger immigration rate per capita than the United States?
18
It's intellectuslly dishonest to suggest the issue is with LEGAL immigration.
2
Judge Hanen didn't say "immigration 'endangers America,'" you did. Read the article: His opinion is based on illegal immigration. Did you get that? Illegal immigration. And as for European immigration, well, we see how that's turning out, don't we? Or don't we?
2
Did Texas say immigration endangers America, or that illegal immigration does?
5
Obama has clearly overstepped his authority. Try "enforcing the laws" on the books currently instead of trying to make up excuses and subvert them.
40
The GOP controlled Congress will never provide the necessary funds to enforce the laws. They prefer to underfund enforcement to ensure they always can use the failure to enforce laws as a club to go after Democrats. Besides, many Republicans don't want their inexpensive workers deported.
"Try "enforcing the laws""
Haven't more illegal immigrants been deported during Obama's Presidency than during that of any of his predecessors?
Haven't more illegal immigrants been deported during Obama's Presidency than during that of any of his predecessors?
Bill doesn't understand the law or the meaning of "enforcement". How is deporting criminals ahead of non-criminals failure to enforce? Does he and others with his point of view prefer that criminals go last?
The reason Obama issued these executive orders is because he knew that if the House began to seriously consider the Senate bill or some version of it, the members of Congress would be assaulted by millions of emails and letters against the bill - the same as what happened in 2006 when Bush tried to grant these illegals citizenship. He knew that the American people - a great majority of them - are against citizenship/work permits/etc. for illegals. I thought we lived in a democracy where decisions are may by us - not solely by a President. Guess not. All of you who think Obama's actions are correct, just consider again and remember that these illegals will be competing with you, your family members, relative and friends for jobs. And I am not speaking about low-wage, fruit picking jobs. How many stories have you read about illegals stealing ss numbers and working good jobs with middle class pay. Don't you think those jobs should go to US citizens? I do. Getting a decent job is hard enough these days - I don't think that it is fair for my kids to have to compete with illegals for jobs. It is just not fair.
16
Ah, yes, the kids. It's always for the kids, isn't it? Well, we need kids -- immigrant kids, too. Europe is facing a demographic crisis because of a rapidly aging population: fewer and fewer young workers are going to have to support more and more retirees. The US is facing the same crisis, but in far less drastic form, because of our immigrants. Frankly, I have not heard of any illegals stealing "good jobs with middle class pay," although there may be some out there. If so, wonderful. They and their kids are welcome to pay into Social Security so I can continue to draw a monthly check. But that assumes that they have some kind of legal status and a valid Social Security number, and they're actually contributing to FICA, not just being paid under the table. Which, by the way, is also just not fair.
There are many categories of immigrants who can legally work in the U.S. and who are not citizens. Should they also be removed from the labor force so your children are guaranteed a job? Maybe you need to concentrate on making sure your children are well prepared for the jobs that exist now and for the jobs of the future.
Hard to believe this is a judge in US law. Biblical flood of immigrants... "most dangerous criminals in society"! He sounds like a sheriff/pastor of a small town. It's rather shocking to listen to his beliefs, every time.
Even many Republican business people want some form of immigration for those here now keeping labor costs low. But Republicans can't anger their base racist base.
Some kind of immigration proposal will happen because it has to. Acceding to reality leaving aside ideology takes courage, going against the grandstanders and thinking about the country, soundbites aside.
Even many Republican business people want some form of immigration for those here now keeping labor costs low. But Republicans can't anger their base racist base.
Some kind of immigration proposal will happen because it has to. Acceding to reality leaving aside ideology takes courage, going against the grandstanders and thinking about the country, soundbites aside.
16
The more the Republicans try to tear Obama down any way they can, the more proud I am of him.
64
And the more you support anything he does. Literally, anything. By now the president can act with impunity. Regardless of what he does, he will have a cadre of loyal supporters out in force defending him.
17
Only because the Repubs have been out in force for the last six years trying to tear down anything, literally anything, he tries to do.
1
Doesnt take much to tear a paper tiger down... His lies, weakness and utter embarrassment to the Office have done that for Republicans. See the last two mid term elections
How bad is a political party that they have to try to get Illegal Aliens to vote for them?
26
Are you assuming all Latinos are here illegally and should not vote?
1
How bad is a political party when they have to limit limit access to the polls?
1
Only citizens can vote! The President's move does not make them citizens,
1
Maybe we need to find out who cuts Judge Hanen's lawn and whether he's been seen around town some nights wearing a pointy white hood. It's one thing to be xenophobic, it's another to stand in the way of sensible policy.
I just wonder... When the judge sits down to dinner, who does he think did the back-breaking work of getting the food out of the fields and onto his table? If all the so-called illegal aliens went on strike, parts of this country would come to a screeching halt.
I just wonder... When the judge sits down to dinner, who does he think did the back-breaking work of getting the food out of the fields and onto his table? If all the so-called illegal aliens went on strike, parts of this country would come to a screeching halt.
42
Sensible policy would be for the President to propose legislation. The Senate bill was a joke, it cost billions and only reduced FUTURE illegal immigration by 40%.
2
So ebmem, why then didn't the House do what they're supposed to do and conference about the bill with the Senate to make it more to their (and your) liking. This President has enforced the border more tightly than any other and deported more people than any other President. He's a bit sick of tearing apart families. Illegal immigration has been reduced on his watch. There is legislation the President supports, but the creeps in the House of Representatives are suffering from some kind of inertia, frozen in place by xenophobes like Judge Hanen and the rest of their base. Perhaps facts take a little longer to filter down to Tennessee? Or perhaps you're getting yours from Fox.
Actually, the judge is standing with the American people - the majority of which are against the blanket amnesty that the plan represents.
"... and he noted the millions of dollars that states spend to educate “each illegal alien child,” even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education." Well, if these children weren't present - if they had been stopped at the border - or deported in accordance with the law of the land - then we wouldn't be paying to educate them, would we?
Finally, recent polls show the majority of Americans trust Republicans, over the President, to handle our immigration issues. All in all, it seems as if the NY Times Editorial Board stands four square against the wishes of the American People.
"... and he noted the millions of dollars that states spend to educate “each illegal alien child,” even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education." Well, if these children weren't present - if they had been stopped at the border - or deported in accordance with the law of the land - then we wouldn't be paying to educate them, would we?
Finally, recent polls show the majority of Americans trust Republicans, over the President, to handle our immigration issues. All in all, it seems as if the NY Times Editorial Board stands four square against the wishes of the American People.
51
I love when Republicans use "the American people" this way, as if it's their way or the highway and nobody else matters. Many American people would disagree.
No, kcy, saying it doesn't make it true.
If we're going by what the majority of Americans want, why don't we have background checks for all gun purchases and other sensible checks that polls show upwards of 70% of Americans want?
"what to do with more than 11 million undocumented people who are living, working and raising families here, when the government cannot possibly apprehend or deport all of them. "
By that logic, the police should never ticket speeders or drunk drivers, since they cannot apprehend all of them. No law enforcement agency has ever caught all of the violators of a law, but that is no reason to announce that they will no longer try to catch any.
By that logic, the police should never ticket speeders or drunk drivers, since they cannot apprehend all of them. No law enforcement agency has ever caught all of the violators of a law, but that is no reason to announce that they will no longer try to catch any.
50
Ignoring also the fact that lack of enforcement encourages more of the behavior.
20
No, the question is, if you can't catch all of them, which ones do you invest resources to catch, the lawbreakers driving 61 mph in a 60 mph zone or those going 90 and/ or weaving in and out of lanes? The hard working man picking vegetables in 100 degree heat while being sprayed with pesticides in the hopes his child has a better life, or the drug dealer?
1
Making an announcement that you are not going to ticket or arrest speeders or drunk drivers will encourage more of the undesirable behavior. It's bad enough that not all criminals are prosecuted, but to publicize same is an invitation to lawlessness.
1
This hacktacular decision ignores the fact that immigration policy is a Federal
matter. So much for the Supremacy Clause in J. Wingnut Judge's courtroom.
The GOP is still fighting the Civil War. Lincoln was wrong Should have let
the South go.
matter. So much for the Supremacy Clause in J. Wingnut Judge's courtroom.
The GOP is still fighting the Civil War. Lincoln was wrong Should have let
the South go.
38
As usual defenders of illegal immigration make this about race. Ask the millions of people of all colors who are waiting and following legal channels if they feel discriminated by brown skinned folks who feel entitled not to respect US laws and sovereignty.
1
Lincoln was a Republican
Yeah but Obama is not enforcing the law and there has been no new law passed.... So here we are
Thank goodness someone is taking a stand against the scourge of illegal immigration!!!!
34
You say 'Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas was so excited at Monday’s decision that he jumped on Twitter to say Mr. Obama’s amnesty order “has been ruled unconstitutional.”' Except it is not "amnesty"; "amnesty" means "forgetting", and it is permanent; the President's Executive Order could be overridden in two years by his successor, and immigrants not subject to deportation now would be vulnerable to deportation at that time. This is a delay, not "amnesty".
43
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. It's an amnesty. It will be irreversible as a practical matter, because the system will be flooded with legal IDs obtained with little or no documentation.
Yea, the Times should have placed the word "amnesty" in quotes to attribute it to Abbott. Since they did not, I take it as a further reflection of the absolute symbol of sloppy incompetence the NYT's editorial board has become.
Too bad that many of the posters here don't understand your point, for them, opinion trumps fact.
The NYT Edit Bd failed to explain why President Obama has the Constitutional right to force 26 states to spend their local taxpayer dollars solving a problem he and Congress could not solve, for whatever reason, including if you wish, Republican intransigence.
I am for immigration reform, including limited amnesty. But the rub is that Obama is incapable of the give-and-take grease of playground politics with his sworn R-enemies. So he made an end-run and got tackled by Judge Hanen. I voted for Obama, twice, but the headline in this case ought to be, "A PRESIDENT'S ASSAULT ON IMMIGRATION."
I am for immigration reform, including limited amnesty. But the rub is that Obama is incapable of the give-and-take grease of playground politics with his sworn R-enemies. So he made an end-run and got tackled by Judge Hanen. I voted for Obama, twice, but the headline in this case ought to be, "A PRESIDENT'S ASSAULT ON IMMIGRATION."
20
Your "give-and-take-playground grease politics" remark is priceless had you applied it to Citizens United, that very greasy law curtesy of right-wing judges siting on SCOTUS.
And when it comes to 'assault on immigration', why was a bipartisan immigration bill not enacted by Congress? Oh dear, I forgot the Hastert Rule.
And when it comes to 'assault on immigration', why was a bipartisan immigration bill not enacted by Congress? Oh dear, I forgot the Hastert Rule.
This ruling, while disappointing, is not surprising and is only a minor setback. Once again a significant element of the Republican Party has gone on record with how it really feels about immigration. By cheerleading such odious phrases as "each illegal alien child" written by such an intemperate judge, Governor Abbott and others continue to remind Americans that the only immigration policy they favor is to close the border. The very real border security policies that the Obama administration has pursued in its six years (in a failed attempt to set up a new comprehensive immigration law), which have adversely affected countless families, are ignored or even denied by the hard right. Will the next GOP presidential nominee also be forced into favoring the awful and inhumane policy of "self-deportation"? Politically, Republicans continue to self-marginalize their party, as they somehow hope that if they ignore the tens of millions of people in the "shadows of illegality" the problem will go away on its own. They don't even comprehend that President Obama has long offered a moderate solution, a compromise that would only put us on the right path. It's just much easier for them to mouth "lawless administration" and hold DHS funding hostage in a futile effort to humiliate the president. They're only humiliating themselves in the long run.
12
We have learnt to our cost in Europe that high-minded sermons about immigration reform amount to little more than a view for the left to import people who they expect to vote for them.
14
Is the Editorial Board on the same planet as most of the rest of us? The "assault" was by Obama using executive orders to explicity bypass th Congress and circumvent the Constitution - the Constitution, surely the Editorial Board has heard of it? If a Republican president had done that to a Democratic-controlled Congress on any issue, the shrieks of editors and reportrs could have been heard beyond the heavens. No double standards, please - and btw I personally support a more flexible approch to immigration, I just want it done within the established Constitutional order.
22
"humane and realistic immigration policy"
So creating the child crisis a year or so ago was humane?
Sending the message that we will give visas to "dreamers" who's parents bring them here illegally is realistic?
Encouraging further illegal immigration that often results in dying along the journey or indentured-servitude in a sweat shop is humane?
And all of this being done by executive order, which at most would last until the next President in 2017 if it is even enforceable all, is summed up as an "humane and realistic immigration policy"?
So creating the child crisis a year or so ago was humane?
Sending the message that we will give visas to "dreamers" who's parents bring them here illegally is realistic?
Encouraging further illegal immigration that often results in dying along the journey or indentured-servitude in a sweat shop is humane?
And all of this being done by executive order, which at most would last until the next President in 2017 if it is even enforceable all, is summed up as an "humane and realistic immigration policy"?
13
The people coming from Central America are their middle class. Hollowing out their countries is what has created turmoil there. They are suffering from our poor enforcement.
Two thoughts: First you state that setting immigration policy is part of the federal government and you are partly correct. Part of that immigration policy are immigration laws which are to be enacted by Congress, not by Presidential fiat. Secondly, you state that it will be an economic boon to bring the illegal immigration population into the work force. Please explain how bringing approximately 12 million people into the low end economic scale going to be a boon for anyone except business owners who will have a much larger pool of minimum wage, low skill workers to hire?
Yes, you are correct in that the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. needs a solution but please do not try to give us the Kool-Aid, your readers are much smarter than that.
Yes, you are correct in that the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. needs a solution but please do not try to give us the Kool-Aid, your readers are much smarter than that.
22
Supposedly, they are already in the workforce, so how does making them legal improve the economy? I guess the $12,000 refundable child credits plus earned income credits (times three years) counts as stimulus to Democrats. How about if we just go ahead and give every illegal family $36,000 and send them home?
1
As usual, this judge's decision, and the despicable gloating by the Texas governor, has more to do with the ingrained Obama-hatred than it does with real immigration issues. And as usual, the Obama-haters, typically all from the GOP, refuse to ignore the real facts in front of them. For example, that deportations increased under this president over those that happened during his predecessors time in office. With a Congress that refuses to present a feasible, fair, and workable immigration package, is it any surprise the president felt he had to take measures of his own? But the haters don't see it that way. If they presented a bill, and the president vetoed it, it would be their job to override that veto. But they won't do that because it's too much work for them. Which brings me to the real issue here: the GOP is comprised of pompous, lazy whiners. It's easier to go with their negativism than cough up something real, other than the bile we've come to expect from them.
23
Deportations declined under Obama. He changed the scoring method to include those turned away at the border. Those numbers have never previously been counted as deportations. You've been Gruberized.
Obama's deportations are all of the paper variety.... Most never follow thru to the actual deportation. Check your facts... Not what the regime wants you to believe
You have been completely hoodwinked as the adminstration has intended. If you go to the website of the federal government you will notice that actual deportations are roughly 25% of what they were around the end of the Clinton presidency / beginning of teh Bush presidency. What Obama did was to start, for the first time ever, counting people turned away at the border in his deportation statistics.
Can we please already ditch the intellectually dishonest use of words “immigrants” and “immigration,” while the nouns should be illegal aliens and invasion, respectively?
Now this: “Judge Hanen said the costs were the result of the federal government’s “failure to secure the borders,” and he noted the millions of dollars that states spend to educate “each illegal alien child,” even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education.”
There are about 3 billion people in the Third World who would love to come here, if illegally, and be treated to our tax dollars via education. No amount of dogmatic sophistry, generously dispensed by the New York Times, will make it “constitutional” to force the US citizen and legal resident to foot the bill, at the tip of the allegedly-constitutional bayonet, for the unlimited trek of millions of illegal aliens.
-- “[the Republicans] are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.”
It’s not “supposed” – it’s bona-fide lawlessness. Only a couple of years ago, Mr. Obama himself said he could not do what he just did. Have the laws changed or has Mr. Obama? A solution -- something that Democrats should preside over -- is to pass harsh penalties for employing illegals. No need the deport millions. They will self-deport.
Let's stop this invasion. As for educating the illegals, we have enough anchor babies already to take care of.
Now this: “Judge Hanen said the costs were the result of the federal government’s “failure to secure the borders,” and he noted the millions of dollars that states spend to educate “each illegal alien child,” even though, as he knows, the Constitution already requires states to provide that education.”
There are about 3 billion people in the Third World who would love to come here, if illegally, and be treated to our tax dollars via education. No amount of dogmatic sophistry, generously dispensed by the New York Times, will make it “constitutional” to force the US citizen and legal resident to foot the bill, at the tip of the allegedly-constitutional bayonet, for the unlimited trek of millions of illegal aliens.
-- “[the Republicans] are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.”
It’s not “supposed” – it’s bona-fide lawlessness. Only a couple of years ago, Mr. Obama himself said he could not do what he just did. Have the laws changed or has Mr. Obama? A solution -- something that Democrats should preside over -- is to pass harsh penalties for employing illegals. No need the deport millions. They will self-deport.
Let's stop this invasion. As for educating the illegals, we have enough anchor babies already to take care of.
38
So, if you believe that all of this so-called invasion happened under Obama's watch, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. And, by the way, It seems that Obama has deported more illegals than did his predecessors.
It would appear that you need to severely cut your consumption of right wing media. It is damaged your perception of reality.
Obama decided in 2009, as soon as he got into office, to cancel all scheduled employer actions. Fining employers for hiring illegal aliens results in self funding fines. So in 2009, when the economy was coming out of recession would have been an excellent time to continue and step up enforcement, freeing up jobs for the unemployed.
The problem is money. The federal government is telling states to spend largely state money to feed, educate and provide health care to millions of illegal immigrants. If the federal government wants to do this, they can pay for it themselves. If not, they can go after the businesses that employ illegals in order to cut labor costs and fatten their own bottom lines. Beneficiaries would include local unskilled and poorly skilled American citizens (mostly minorities), who would see their wages rise as the supply of cheap foreign labor fell.
15
A good portion of the funds "to feed, educate and provide health care to millions of illegal immigrants." come from the federal government. I doubt very much that if every undocumented child was removed from Texas schools, those schools would improve their quality. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if Texas lawmakers decided to cut funding further on the pretext that the funds aren't needed due to reduced school enrollment. Most of the schools with undocumented students are in low-income neighborhoods that never got adequate funding and resources even before the arrival of these students. The same goes for the health care facilities where the poor go. And as for food, how much do you think food would cost for citizens and legal immigrants if all that cheap labor was removed?
And my opinion is (as a devoted TEXAN and serious judge) send them all home, just to expensive. You may be surprised but many in the Bush administration including one of his chiefs of staff was in favor of immigration reform because it helps the economy and who else are you going to get to fix your leaking roof on a Sunday. Yes many of our non status immigrants work very hard and are a credit to their families and employers.
7
As a judge, you mean that if a person works very hard, and on Sundays, and is a credit to their families and employers, it is OK for them to enter this country illegally? It is OK to break the law: the U.S. Code states that entering this country without authorization is a federal offense.
The Republican governors just gave the 2016 Presidential election away to the Democrats. And the Senate.
7
Polls say that democrat voters are starting to move to support republicans on this issue.
We can only hope.
"Setting immigration policy is the perogative of the federal government, not the states". Deal with it. The Judge did not.
10
The Federal Government includes Congress and the Judiciary, not just the President. That is the issue here.
Writing new law is the role of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Obama consistently said he didn't have the legal authority to change immigration policy until he decided he could. He can decide to selectively enforce, maybe, but he's not legally empowered to grant work visas to illegal aliens.
These people are ILLEGAL (I notice that word was omitted by you libs as always) immigrants, so how is this judge's ruling an assault on immigration? That's akin to saying that the prosecution of a Hispanic shop lifter is an assault on the Hispanic community's right to freely shop (hey, that sounds like an MSNBC fantasy story!). The liberal media rules over the Sheeple by omission, conflation, and statistical manipulation. It's time to wake up to the truth!
20
The damage perpetrated on America by George W. Bush's appointments to key judgeship vacancies in the Judiciary Branch will be witnessed and experienced as suffering and disenfranchisement by the huge percentage of our citizens that couldn't purchase protection from the Conservative Republican hit squads. The frightening legacy of Conservative Republican Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench to the clear detriment of the majority of Americans almost obscures both Bush president's rat-packing vacancies in the rest of the Federal Judiciary with appointments of ultra-conservative Republican partisans like Judge Andrew Hanen.
How many generations will it take to recover from the Bush wars, the Bush Judiciary appointments and the Bush-influenced legislation that has damaged huge swathes of American environment and seriously disadvantaged large numbers of American citizens?
Please don't even consider another Bush President.
How many generations will it take to recover from the Bush wars, the Bush Judiciary appointments and the Bush-influenced legislation that has damaged huge swathes of American environment and seriously disadvantaged large numbers of American citizens?
Please don't even consider another Bush President.
12
The Democrats have packed the DC Court of Appeals, and you aren't at all concerned about that.
Fancy that...a judge coming down on the side of the law instead of Presidential fiat.
21
I know there's a news cycle, but it's called "Court Shopping." So let's not lay on too dramatic a narrative, as if it were a genuinely seesawing battle back and forth.
More noteworthy is that Republican Party, which used to be such a staunch bastion of support for expansive executive power, shows all the signs of giving up on the Presidency for the foreseeable future, so willing now are even mainstream, institutional Republicans to hamstring the office in every way possible.
In truth, reining in the "Imperial Presidency" would not be such a bad idea were the GOP actually interested in governing legislatively, pragmatically on behalf of the nation as a whole, instead of just pursuing a formula for re-election: further lining the deep pockets of billionaire contributors and punching race and gender hot buttons harder and harder to hyper-motivate an inexorably diminishing base.
More noteworthy is that Republican Party, which used to be such a staunch bastion of support for expansive executive power, shows all the signs of giving up on the Presidency for the foreseeable future, so willing now are even mainstream, institutional Republicans to hamstring the office in every way possible.
In truth, reining in the "Imperial Presidency" would not be such a bad idea were the GOP actually interested in governing legislatively, pragmatically on behalf of the nation as a whole, instead of just pursuing a formula for re-election: further lining the deep pockets of billionaire contributors and punching race and gender hot buttons harder and harder to hyper-motivate an inexorably diminishing base.
6
You could swap out Republican with Democrat and it would essentially still be true
Interesting that the New York Times Editorial Board likes to cite the
ingenuous statement that 35 States now approve of "Same Gender Marriages"
- when in reality most of that "State Approval" was forced by Federal Judges -
but does not like that fact that 26 States sued Obama's Immigration plan.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal Republic of America.
To expect States and Local Communities to provide what Federal Law demands
without involving the States or their Representatives in the Policy Decision on
Immigration was not politically or legally wise by President Obama.
We have no method, let alone a cogent one, for resolving 10 Amendment issues.
Why do not have a National Job board that would allow Documented
Immigrants to apply for jobs that "Native Citizens" will not apply for -
is a puzzlement.
It is manifestly unfair to those who work for Minimum Wage and who can
barely afford housing to have to compete with Un-Documented Immigrants
who are willing to work for whatever wage they might be paid.
Perhaps the Editors of the New York Times can afford to have Gardeners,
Nannies, Maids etc and so fear the loss of such workers were Un-Documented
Immigrants were sent back to their own countries - but most of us cannot.
A Just and Viable Solution is needed and our Politicians owe it to the Citizens
of this country and those who are Un-Documented but have been here for
years to find one - what we do not need is the arbitrary intrusion of
Federal Judges.
ingenuous statement that 35 States now approve of "Same Gender Marriages"
- when in reality most of that "State Approval" was forced by Federal Judges -
but does not like that fact that 26 States sued Obama's Immigration plan.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal Republic of America.
To expect States and Local Communities to provide what Federal Law demands
without involving the States or their Representatives in the Policy Decision on
Immigration was not politically or legally wise by President Obama.
We have no method, let alone a cogent one, for resolving 10 Amendment issues.
Why do not have a National Job board that would allow Documented
Immigrants to apply for jobs that "Native Citizens" will not apply for -
is a puzzlement.
It is manifestly unfair to those who work for Minimum Wage and who can
barely afford housing to have to compete with Un-Documented Immigrants
who are willing to work for whatever wage they might be paid.
Perhaps the Editors of the New York Times can afford to have Gardeners,
Nannies, Maids etc and so fear the loss of such workers were Un-Documented
Immigrants were sent back to their own countries - but most of us cannot.
A Just and Viable Solution is needed and our Politicians owe it to the Citizens
of this country and those who are Un-Documented but have been here for
years to find one - what we do not need is the arbitrary intrusion of
Federal Judges.
9
The US had an 11.3% real unemployment rate, wages have been stagnant for years. If Obama and the NYT really cared about the plight of the diminishing middle class, then steps should be taken to reduce the labor oversupply and reduce taxes, not adding millions to the labor force and social services.
16
Allow me change the readers paradigm, like what the author tried to do.
First off, the judge's action was not an 'assault on immigration" because the people in question are not IMMIGRANTS! An immigrant is someone who came to this country LEGALLY, or who is the child of someone who came to this country legally. The vast majority of the people in question are criminals who KNOWINGLY came to this country illegally. Ask any of them, and if they are being truthful they will tell you that they figured it was just a matter of time before their time was up, but the benefits of coming outweighed the costs if any.
Second, this so called "assault" as the author of this magnificent literary work puts is (sic) is really nothing more than the legal and democratic process in action. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a pure democracy, and as such the three branches of government exist in large part to provide a system of checks and balances to decisions that are handed down by, say, a President that takes it upon himself to violate the Constitution with regards to immigration law.
So in a nutshell.... thank GOD for that pesky checks and balances system! For we would surely be living in a pure unadulterated Liberal Socialistic bliss were it not to exist.
First off, the judge's action was not an 'assault on immigration" because the people in question are not IMMIGRANTS! An immigrant is someone who came to this country LEGALLY, or who is the child of someone who came to this country legally. The vast majority of the people in question are criminals who KNOWINGLY came to this country illegally. Ask any of them, and if they are being truthful they will tell you that they figured it was just a matter of time before their time was up, but the benefits of coming outweighed the costs if any.
Second, this so called "assault" as the author of this magnificent literary work puts is (sic) is really nothing more than the legal and democratic process in action. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a pure democracy, and as such the three branches of government exist in large part to provide a system of checks and balances to decisions that are handed down by, say, a President that takes it upon himself to violate the Constitution with regards to immigration law.
So in a nutshell.... thank GOD for that pesky checks and balances system! For we would surely be living in a pure unadulterated Liberal Socialistic bliss were it not to exist.
19
82% of Americans oppose Amnesty. Obama and the NYT are on the wrong side of history and the law. While we may not deport all the illegals, we are a nation of laws and are not subjects of imperial fiat. God Bless America.
24
Only because they don't understand what amnesty and can't speak to their ancestors about how they immigrated to America -- like your own Scottish or Northern Irish ones. God Bless humane immigration as a hallmark of what has made this country what it is.
8
Cite your source. Do you really think God blesses America? For doing what? For invading Iraq under false pretenses? For remaining a racist country? For imprisoning more citizens than any other civilized nation? For having nearly 25% of our children live in poverty? For continuing to pollute God's good earth? For all of this and more you we think we deserve to be blessed? I think not.
1
And, of course, the "you can't deport them all" claim is a straw man. No one ever seriously suggested rounding them up and shipping them home. What would work, though, is requiring proper ID for all transactions, beginning with driver licenses, employment and school registration. You know, the very actions that were promised the last time the federal government decided to bring "out of the shadows" the last millions of illegal immigrants, in 1986. No more "don't ask, don't tell."
What the Times fails to acknowledge, in addition to the insanity of adding 10 million generally uneducated and unskilled workers to the legal workforce when unemployment is still at disturbing levels, and in addition to the wave of fraudulent claims that will have to be addressed, is the fact that the very incentives that led to this "backlog" of 11-20 million CONTINUE IN PLACE. We will have told the whole world yet again that we don't bother enforcing our immigration laws; come on in! The same "under-the-table" employers will seek out new illegal immigrants because the 2015 class will have green cards and will no longer be doing work that "Americans won't do." Nothing has changed except that we wave the white flag of immigration defeat higher.
What the Times fails to acknowledge, in addition to the insanity of adding 10 million generally uneducated and unskilled workers to the legal workforce when unemployment is still at disturbing levels, and in addition to the wave of fraudulent claims that will have to be addressed, is the fact that the very incentives that led to this "backlog" of 11-20 million CONTINUE IN PLACE. We will have told the whole world yet again that we don't bother enforcing our immigration laws; come on in! The same "under-the-table" employers will seek out new illegal immigrants because the 2015 class will have green cards and will no longer be doing work that "Americans won't do." Nothing has changed except that we wave the white flag of immigration defeat higher.
Mr. Obama has made a historic comment, more so it forms a part of historic statement:
"The law is on our side and history is on our side," Obama said in the Oval Office. He said his actions to defer deportations for potentially millions of migrants will improve a broken immigration system.
"The law is on our side and history is on our side," Obama said in the Oval Office. He said his actions to defer deportations for potentially millions of migrants will improve a broken immigration system.
1
He's the one who broke an already struggling immigration system when he decided not to enforce the laws prohibiting the hiring of illegal aliens.
It is unfortunate that the Federal Courts have become infused with politics. Everyone knew what the ruling of this particular judge would be from his prior opinions which unnecessarily exposed his opinion of the President and his immigration policies. That is why the case was filed in his district and division. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has likewise injected its political leanings into its rulings of late. I predict that the injunction will be upheld and the Government will have to go to the Supreme Court. If that Court sticks to the facts, prior established law, and the principle of stare decisis, the rulings of the lower courts will be reversed and the injunction lifted. Unfortunately, ever since Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court has no longer been the neutral arbiter that the citizens have the right to expect. America no longer has an "exceptional" judicial system compared to other countries.
7
Are you really trying to argue that Obama is legally justified in his actions? Only a judge who ignored the law would have decided differently.
Thank you Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, all knee jerk reactionaries.
Funny how a judicial decision that goes against the eye of the beholder is considered "political" but one that you agree with is the right decision. Go figure. For anyone who wants to understand what the judge actually ruled, best to search out the decision for oneself. The judge issued the stay WITHOUT ruling on the legality of the adminstration's moves. Reason was that, even if it is legal (judge thought it was not) the adminstration did not follow the normal procedure of giving notice and allowing time for comments. It will be difficult for Obama to wrangle his way out of this one. Maybe we will get another 9-0 slapdown by the Supreme Court, to go along with the 13 others that we have already received.
When a federal judge rules your way, you trumpet it to the sky and urge the administration not to appeal. When the judge does not, you insult him and hope for better luck in the court of appeals. Nice.
20
"his recent executive actions to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation"
Wow. So the Editorial Board believes that the President of the United States is right to protect law breakers from the laws of the United States?
Just wow.
Wow. So the Editorial Board believes that the President of the United States is right to protect law breakers from the laws of the United States?
Just wow.
32
For years, the president has been working to protect illegal immigrants from our immigration laws, all the while projecting an image of being "tough" on illegal immigration. Another example of his public relations mastery.
4
What Obama should do is ask Congress to fund a massive round-up and deportation of the undocumented. Then we can listen to Mitchell, Boehner and Lindsey Graham talk about why they oppose it.
1
Texas. Texas. Texas. A state with the most Tea Party members in Congress. A state which had a Governor who ran for President and demonstrated he was the most ignorant member on stage during the GOP Presidential primary debates. The state which boasts one of the poorest records in health care and education. A state controlled by Big Oil and full of climate deniers. A state noted for trying to role back voting rights for blacks. A state that celebrates gun culture to the max. A state that gave us LBJ in Vietnam and Bush in Iraq. The state in which JFK was assassinated. What can one say about Texas except that it is the beating heart of the Republican Party.
17
Federal, Federal, Federal. The judge was a Federal judge, approved by Congress.
Democrats have demonstrated that they do not value honesty or competence or intelligence. Clinton comes to mind. We have a President who lies non stop, who believes there are 58 states (he's only been to 57), who refuses to release his college information and doesn't understand the role of the legislature. (Now admit it, if he had good grades, or high board scores, or hadn't asserted that he wasn't American, but Indonesian, when he applied to college, those records would have been released. Even Kerry finally released his C grades from Yale, indistinguishable from W's grades.)
And Texas did not attempt to role (sic) back voting rights for citizens, only for illegal aliens. We know why Obama sees that as an injustice.
And Texas did not attempt to role (sic) back voting rights for citizens, only for illegal aliens. We know why Obama sees that as an injustice.
Why is it the president's job to "protect" illegal immigrants from deportation?
The Executive Branch of our government is charged with enforcing law, not devoting its considerable resources to thwarting the states and preventing duly sworn officers of the law from enforcing our laws.
The Executive Branch of our government is charged with enforcing law, not devoting its considerable resources to thwarting the states and preventing duly sworn officers of the law from enforcing our laws.
33
Bullies need to be punched in the nose. Thank you Judge Hanen, Gov. Abbott, the A.G.'s from the 26 states and the GOP for punishing executive overreach. Liberals are all for executive overreach and biased Judges as long as they support their causes. Liberal fascism needs to be crushed.
25
Hey you've got a Supreme Court dominated by some of the most conservative judges we've seen in ages; whose rulings (Citizens United, on the foolish notion "corporations are people, too..." and the repealing of a key provision in the Voting Rights Act, on their naive belief that "there is no longer any prejudice/racism/bigotry/whatever" to name two)will have profound effects for a long tome to come.
So, with that in mind, enough, already with this business about "liberal judges," and such.
So, with that in mind, enough, already with this business about "liberal judges," and such.
The GOP has plenty of solutions. On immigration, they like keeping the workforce illegal and in fear - low pay, no benefits, no unions, no problems! Just like healthcare where their answer is private, for profit, for those who can pay - with rich insurance executives to make campaign contributions. The republicans think that raising Herbert Hoover from the dead would bring back the golden and gilded age of American capitalism. They'd make 97% of us illegal if they could.
22
No Jim, they want to enforce the law of the land. The problem is the President, despite his oath, has no such desire. It is the presence of illegal immigrants that are depressing wages. The Republicans want them deported. The Democrats want more of them.
So are you saying President Obama is a closet Republican, serving employers to keep "low pay, no benefits"? I agree - there is some evidence to support your view.
Obamacare was never about providing care, it was about financing health care to line the pockets of big medicine. You've been Gruberized.
It's Texas, Jake, it's Texas!
6
"Assault", Really? What bombastic language?! While the judge's decision might be overturned by a higher court and the President may well be within his rights on how to enforce immigration laws, it is a stretch to call the judge's ruling an assault. Besides, the ruling is not about immigration, it is about illegal immigration. Big difference!
30
There is no word for illegal or legal immigration; therefore, we are talking about immigration. If animals can immigrate across borders with impunity humans can do the same whether you like it or not.
The President is playing chess with the Republicans and he them in check. There are many bible thumping federal judges in the south that are more than happy to derail anything the President does in the cause of God, freedom, liberty. The federal bench is highly politicized and becoming more so all the time.
The Republicans freely admit that they want nothing to do with immigration reform short of mass deportations and building a 50 wall along the southern border. The President took action to relieve a festering problem. Of course he knew that the GOP would issue a court challenge. That is their standard operating procedure. Judge Hanen didn't get this case by accident or happenstance.
The President's executive order has placed the Republicans in the position of passing legislation that will strongly alienate hispanic voters, or, stage a court fight that will do the same. Either way, the President comes out looking good to the hispanic population. If he loses the court fight, he still wins. One more bad move by the GOP and it's checkmate in 2016.
The Republicans freely admit that they want nothing to do with immigration reform short of mass deportations and building a 50 wall along the southern border. The President took action to relieve a festering problem. Of course he knew that the GOP would issue a court challenge. That is their standard operating procedure. Judge Hanen didn't get this case by accident or happenstance.
The President's executive order has placed the Republicans in the position of passing legislation that will strongly alienate hispanic voters, or, stage a court fight that will do the same. Either way, the President comes out looking good to the hispanic population. If he loses the court fight, he still wins. One more bad move by the GOP and it's checkmate in 2016.
24
Either way, the President comes out looking good to the hispanic population
---------------------------------
Of course that is what counts, not the law, not his oath of office and you still think the problem is Republicans.
---------------------------------
Of course that is what counts, not the law, not his oath of office and you still think the problem is Republicans.
When Bush tried to advance immigration reform, the Democrats refused to go along. And yet during 2009 and 2010, when they had a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate and the Presidency, they did nothing. Of course they didn't pass a budget either.
They also didn't do anything about Global Warming either. That was extremely poor timing, since in 2009 there were still people who believed in Global Warming. It's going to be really hard to persuade even Democrat voters to double or triple energy costs when the evidence of their eyes tells them that no cataclysm is imminent.
They also didn't do anything about Global Warming either. That was extremely poor timing, since in 2009 there were still people who believed in Global Warming. It's going to be really hard to persuade even Democrat voters to double or triple energy costs when the evidence of their eyes tells them that no cataclysm is imminent.
Governor Abbott's tweet made a bird sound reasoned.
7
What does his unbalanced buddy, Ted Nugent, think?
The radical right which did not complain when GW Bush ruled a secret government of administration insiders and lawyers who justified the virtual negation of our democracy by executive edict based on secret legal opinions. These orders do what the Senate had already authorized and the House refused to bring to a vote. What hypocrisy and the right is stunned that we still have an executive branch with powers among which is the proper allocation of funds to bring about a result that will most benefit this nation a matter of little or no consequence to the radical right.
Not having their way they are trying everything to reduce the powers of a Democratic president including law suits challenging the constitutionality of the presidents actions and forum shopping to find a Judge who was appointed for life who would be sure to overrule the president based prior public statements.
This some might say this is democracy in action where a District Court Judge can block the president who was elected by a majority of the people.
The Judge did not say the president lacked the powers only that the enforcement should be stayed pendente lite. An appeal to the 5th Circuit as been taken and because of irreparable injury and the stay will likely be lifted. The 5th Circuit can also hold that as a matter of law, by taking judicial notice of the presidential orders, hold that the president’s orders pass constitutional muster, which should be the proper response for forum shopping.
Not having their way they are trying everything to reduce the powers of a Democratic president including law suits challenging the constitutionality of the presidents actions and forum shopping to find a Judge who was appointed for life who would be sure to overrule the president based prior public statements.
This some might say this is democracy in action where a District Court Judge can block the president who was elected by a majority of the people.
The Judge did not say the president lacked the powers only that the enforcement should be stayed pendente lite. An appeal to the 5th Circuit as been taken and because of irreparable injury and the stay will likely be lifted. The 5th Circuit can also hold that as a matter of law, by taking judicial notice of the presidential orders, hold that the president’s orders pass constitutional muster, which should be the proper response for forum shopping.
10
In 2012, the Senate passed and the House defeated the DREAM Act. The president's 2013 action bypassed this vote. No doubt Bush was sleazy, but did any of his executive actions directly contradict a congressional vote?
Obama has continued every single policy that was in place at the end of Bush's Presidency. Liberals have been suspiciously silent.
Read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. Bush ignored laws on the books and ran a secret government of which Congress was not informed, There is a difference between sleaze and dictatorship and Bush believed that he was a dictator and consistently lied to Congress. Bush and Cheney (mostly Cheney) should have been prosecuted and Obama did not have the guts to do it because of his obsession with bipartisanship a word the GOP uses when it gets a single Democratic vote.
Perhaps the President should have accomplished his ends by purely bureaucratic means: actually prioritize the spending of money on deportations of criminals.
7
It's not surprising that President Obama's actions receive support from editorial writers, the Chamber of Commerce, and other elites with little to lose on this issue.
But it's also not surprising that American and legal immigrant janitors, house painters, and other blue-collar types are much less enthusiastic. They know what 5 million suddenly legal competitors will do to their already limited wage leverage.
Make e-verify mandatory, secure the border, create a real visa tracking system.
Only after those things are in place and shown to work can you consider any sort of amnesty. Otherwise, you will have a de facto open border that will make life even tougher for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
But it's also not surprising that American and legal immigrant janitors, house painters, and other blue-collar types are much less enthusiastic. They know what 5 million suddenly legal competitors will do to their already limited wage leverage.
Make e-verify mandatory, secure the border, create a real visa tracking system.
Only after those things are in place and shown to work can you consider any sort of amnesty. Otherwise, you will have a de facto open border that will make life even tougher for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
22
Unfortunately, what individuals think will essentially not count--at least not until the Supreme Court has heard arguments and decided how it wants to deal with immigration and immigrants. And even then, it may well be THAT decision which settles the matter. My personal vote is for finding a way for the Dream Team "children" to earn citizenship as a start. Brought to the U.S. by their (illegal) parents as babies and youngsters, they didn't have a choice and won't, unless something practical is done. We can certainly use the talents and achievements and service of these young people to benefit our country. Let's agree on working out a plan to let them--through demonstrating their achievements and motivation--contribute their part to serving our--and their--country,
4
Why not keep the babies where they belong - with their parents? Wherever that ends up. If I were one of the parents, that is what I would want.....
Excuse me, is this move part of the GOP's efforts to attract more Latino voters. To whom are they trying to attract them?
3
Maybe the Republicans are more interested in the rights of American citizens and less interested, unlike the Democrats, in finding another minority group to add to their plantation of victims dependent on the government.
60% of the legally residing hispanic community supports enforcement of the current laws first. Is Obama's move part of the Democratic party's efforts to support the African American community - which has been its most loyal constituency for roughly 50 years?
I don't know if judge Hanen lives in Brownsville, TX, but if he's anywhere near the Texas/Mexico border he'd know that the Texas economy, indeed the economy of the industrialized United States in general, depends on immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. It's difficult to imagine he lives there and is oblivious to this rudimentary fact of economics.
4
Any "need for labor" has nothing to do with law. I doubt those words were ever used in the context you imply.......It may or may not be a "fact of economics", but it is not a fact of law. Isn't LAW what this is all about?
1
The arguments in favor of Obama's executive action on immigration in this editorial can be summed up as follows:
"The end justifies the means."
This may be sufficient for Machiavelli and 16th century Italy but it doesn't meet the standards of 21st century America. We have a court system that, hopefully, rules on the means, not the end. There was a time when the NYT editorial board would have supported that approach. What happened?
"The end justifies the means."
This may be sufficient for Machiavelli and 16th century Italy but it doesn't meet the standards of 21st century America. We have a court system that, hopefully, rules on the means, not the end. There was a time when the NYT editorial board would have supported that approach. What happened?
10
If I've ever seen a political hack job disguised as a judicial ruling, it's the immigration decree from Texas. The judge spewed various sorts of vitriol intended more to rile up the base than to make better policy. His proclamation of Obama'a lawlessness is not only irrelevant to the legal question at hand but unhelpfully inflammatory. We need to get judges like these off the bench. They have proven their inability to faithfully execute their sworn responsibilities.
10
When did judges become interested in riling up the base?
1
Accusing the Republicans, that "they have no meaningful solutions"? Many would say that the current administration has completely failed in any meaningful solutions, and you say that opening our veins and dropping any semblance of order is a meaningful solution. What flavor does that Kool-Aid have?
9
Then perhaps you can tell us those solutions the Republicans have that would work? Oh wait, they dont have any. I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! WHen will you people figure out they dont want to fix problems they use as wedge issues to run on in every election? They play you like a sap every election with this nonsense and offer nothing in the way of a solution. But when Obama has and tries to put it into effect, they get outraged and blame Dems and liberals for Republican failure to address our problems.
1
Many of the fine Citizens of the US seem to forget exactly how "they" got here. It is a Nation of immigrants and I guarantee you at some point in time one of their ancestors came from a place far, far away.
The fine Citizens of the US at that time I'm sure were only to happy to see them. They weren't accused of spreading diseases, or even given derogatory names. I'm sure that their paperwork was all in order and no illegal activity occurred. Because back then everyone was honest and the Borders were more secure.
I am also sure that this problem with illegal immigration started when Obama came into office.
The fine Citizens of the US at that time I'm sure were only to happy to see them. They weren't accused of spreading diseases, or even given derogatory names. I'm sure that their paperwork was all in order and no illegal activity occurred. Because back then everyone was honest and the Borders were more secure.
I am also sure that this problem with illegal immigration started when Obama came into office.
9
Earlier waves of immigrants did not have the current welfare state or educational entitlements. Children ended up in large classes with no ESL to help them learn English. Not saying this is how things should be, but how are school districts to pay for mandated class sizes and ESL programs? The earlier waves did not put anyway near the stress on K-12 education.
Actually we know exactly how we got here.America was built by legal immigrants(or what passed for legal at the time) invited here to toil in the mines,build the railroads and fill the servants quarters of the wealthy.Oh,and don't forget all the wars they supplied the blood for.
There was no basket of tax payer funded goodies.Healthcare? good luck.Education? Supplied by whatever religious group the immigrants belonged to,funded by pennies scraped together and put in the collection basket.I know Canada had a burdensome influx of wealthy Asians a few years back but you got through it.When you're willing to accept and pay for thousands if not millions of unskilled,uneducated illegals barging their way to the front of the line we'll be happy to accept your smug opinions.
There was no basket of tax payer funded goodies.Healthcare? good luck.Education? Supplied by whatever religious group the immigrants belonged to,funded by pennies scraped together and put in the collection basket.I know Canada had a burdensome influx of wealthy Asians a few years back but you got through it.When you're willing to accept and pay for thousands if not millions of unskilled,uneducated illegals barging their way to the front of the line we'll be happy to accept your smug opinions.
I didn't know the president was in charge on deciding how much time Congress has to pass a law. I personally don't like either side, but deciding that 5 million people get a straw to put in the Social Security and other programs troughs, seems to be a really bad decision. Yes they are here illegally, and yeah they are taking services and some are getting $120,000 worth of free education developed, paid for by Americans, but can't the president just give it away because he feels their pain. Paint me a skeptic.
9
How many times must it be pointed out that they are obviously incapable of governing? As you so correctly point out; they have no solutions.
6
An "Assault on Immigration"? That's rich. More like an assault on our borders.
20
That is ridiculous. You cross borders, you dont assault them. And if the border isnt secure with heat sensors, motion detection, armed personell for miles walking patrols, river patrols, drone patrols, helicopter patrols, etc it will NEVER be "secure." Truth is the border is more secure than it has ever been and those saying its not are looting the treasury for their defense contractor donors. Translation: They are lying to you wholesale.
1
Ronin - If the border were as secure as you claim, explain how 50,000+ children needed to be moved about the country last summer. Please enlighten me, but keep the snarkiness to a minimum.
I Agree on one point. Our President, Our Legislature Must Work Together to Solve Immigration Problem. Not for politics. For the millions of people who deserve to live dignified lives, free from exploitation, and insecurity. While honoring the rule of law and institutions that make our country so appealing in the first place.
3
By the 15 comments already reported, it's easy to see how many people watch Fox News and how many people are NY Times readers. Our country's electorate is split apart, and I blame a good part of the split on the fear-mongering of one of the above.
7
At least those who watch Fox News also seek out news sources from alternate perspectives.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
That just about sums up the past few years of (lack of) legislation and governance in the US. At the end of the day, it is just pathetic to see Congresspeople behaving like a bunch of schoolyard bullies circling the one guy who dares to look and act different from them. President Obama's legacy is assured regardless of what happens over the last stages of his presidency. But the vile, meaningless and unproductive Republicans will be remembered only for their sick behavior, rotten atttitudes and inability to work with the President on anything at all.
That just about sums up the past few years of (lack of) legislation and governance in the US. At the end of the day, it is just pathetic to see Congresspeople behaving like a bunch of schoolyard bullies circling the one guy who dares to look and act different from them. President Obama's legacy is assured regardless of what happens over the last stages of his presidency. But the vile, meaningless and unproductive Republicans will be remembered only for their sick behavior, rotten atttitudes and inability to work with the President on anything at all.
16
The complaint that the Obama administration has "failed to secure the borders" is, by now, a tired, repetitious refrain. Just what would secure borders look like? How many troops is the judge in Texas, or Republicans generally, prepared to send? How would they be paid for and by whom?
East Berlin found a way to create a "secure border" with west Berlin. They built a very high wall and put two successive rows of sharp, barbed wire in front of it. Then they shot anyone who tried to go over the top.
The U.S. could do this and, in the process, we would be seen as one of the most arrogant, inhumane nations in the world. Putting someone with a rifle every 60 ft. from California to south Texas, nearly 2,000 miles, would require about half a million troops to do one 24 hour shift. 5 days a week. Adding a weekend shift would involve another half million people. Even more than the first one million would be required to cover vacation and sick days. These people would have to be prepared to shoot to kill people desperately fleeing poverty and, in the case of central American refugees, vicious, violent gangs.
This, of course, would be madness, but short of that what does the judge in Texas, and the Republican party propose?
In short, there is no way, short of an occupying army, to fully secure the southern border. That doesn't matter. The point is to keep things in unsettled limbo while employers in America keep benefiting from cheap, easily exploited labor.
Doug Terry
East Berlin found a way to create a "secure border" with west Berlin. They built a very high wall and put two successive rows of sharp, barbed wire in front of it. Then they shot anyone who tried to go over the top.
The U.S. could do this and, in the process, we would be seen as one of the most arrogant, inhumane nations in the world. Putting someone with a rifle every 60 ft. from California to south Texas, nearly 2,000 miles, would require about half a million troops to do one 24 hour shift. 5 days a week. Adding a weekend shift would involve another half million people. Even more than the first one million would be required to cover vacation and sick days. These people would have to be prepared to shoot to kill people desperately fleeing poverty and, in the case of central American refugees, vicious, violent gangs.
This, of course, would be madness, but short of that what does the judge in Texas, and the Republican party propose?
In short, there is no way, short of an occupying army, to fully secure the southern border. That doesn't matter. The point is to keep things in unsettled limbo while employers in America keep benefiting from cheap, easily exploited labor.
Doug Terry
47
So there is a number that would work! What if we stationed troops 1 every 120 feet. That would cut the troop requirement in half and cut down injuries and death from friendly fire.
The GOP needs going into 2016 not only to keep whipping Mr. Obama, but also to keep their radical base whipped up about "the other" who proposes a threat to "our country." A cardinal characteristic of the right wing base is xenophobia - they are stoking and feeding it; reminding these activists of the horrible dangers (brown faced children, lettuce picking dads, busboys etc.) to which hated liberals subject "OUR country."
19
Republican political operatives have been masterful at exploiting the innate tendency of conservatives to be wary of the "others". Those that do not look like me, talk like me, believe like me are suspect and undeserving of the compassion those same conservatives preach on Sunday. Conservative politics and fundamentalist religion seem to be two sides of the same coin. Republican political operatives know this all too well and are shameless in exploiting it. They have been very successful in getting people to vote against their economic interests by pretending to support their "values".
The moneymen behind the republican party care not about social issues. They care about low levels of taxes, regulation, transparency, and labor power.
The moneymen behind the republican party care not about social issues. They care about low levels of taxes, regulation, transparency, and labor power.
Sigh. Whatever happened to charity, compassion and forgiveness?
4
Charity, compassion and forgiveness are alive and well among people in all 50 states. But the majority of us have considerably more charity and compassion for the 9 million-plus Americans who are out of work, who are looking for work, and for the many millions of Americans who are under-employed and working two or three part-time jobs to try to make ends meet.
We would offer forgiveness to President Obama if he said, "I'm not going to pursue the executive actions I have taken to give legal protection, including the ability to work as well as the ability to file retro-tax returns and receive $24,000 in tax credits. I have listened to you as you told me the hardest-hit by my plan would be unemployed and under-employed Americans are Black Americans, who will be in direct competition for jobs with those illegal immigrants I would give the legal right to BE in competition with you. And I have heard you. I understand your feelings, I understand your reasoning."
We would offer forgiveness to President Obama if he said, "I'm not going to pursue the executive actions I have taken to give legal protection, including the ability to work as well as the ability to file retro-tax returns and receive $24,000 in tax credits. I have listened to you as you told me the hardest-hit by my plan would be unemployed and under-employed Americans are Black Americans, who will be in direct competition for jobs with those illegal immigrants I would give the legal right to BE in competition with you. And I have heard you. I understand your feelings, I understand your reasoning."
Those aren't in the Constitution. And they play no part in this. Being charitable and compassionate to illegal immigrants means being uncharitable and un-compassionate and un-forgiving to those who have to pay the price for illegal immigration.
So called Republican intransigence is no excuse to usurp power to the Executive. Or rather, legislative intransigence has been THE excuse to usurp power to the executive from the time of Julius Caesar. The Democrats seem to be borrowing Caesar's strategy of vote buying. Instead of offering bread and circuses to the plebs, he is pandering to Hispanic voters, while dramatically increasing their numbers. Such ploys will precipitate America's slide into Latin American populism, with attendant dire consequences on economic and personal liberty. Thank goodness there are still Americans in Government who believe in the Constitutional separation of powers!
7
Ironically the racist sound and fury emanating from the right wing detracts from what are legitimate concerns raised by people on the progressive left. It *is* unfair that a person who came to this country illegally will get de facto immunity from deportation when others, who never successfully entered the United States, are left in USCIS limbo for years. Why wait a decade to immigrate from someplace like the Philippines when you could hop on a plane to Mexico or Canada, pay a coyote to get you across the border, and then stay? We basically are applying the Cuban one-dry-foot policy to everyone.
Another legitimate complaint from the left is the effect that a large number of low-paid workers has on the existing poor. If I'm a kid with a high school education my career prospects in today's economy are dim. Add a few million workers worth of competition who don't need to be paid even minimum wage and my prospects look even worse. To put it succinctly, there is no such thing as a shortage of labor: there is only a shortage of labor at the price an employer is willing to pay.
Another legitimate complaint from the left is the effect that a large number of low-paid workers has on the existing poor. If I'm a kid with a high school education my career prospects in today's economy are dim. Add a few million workers worth of competition who don't need to be paid even minimum wage and my prospects look even worse. To put it succinctly, there is no such thing as a shortage of labor: there is only a shortage of labor at the price an employer is willing to pay.
10
The Cliff's Notes version of this op-ed would consist of just the last paragraph:
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
Seriously.
To those who would dispute that point--please point me towards the legislation the GOP has put forward as the replacement for the ACA
There is none.
Four plus years in--and there is none.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform. They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
Seriously.
To those who would dispute that point--please point me towards the legislation the GOP has put forward as the replacement for the ACA
There is none.
Four plus years in--and there is none.
20
"However the appellate courts come down on the case..."
Look, I support President Obama and the policy that he is trying to implement, but I am confused...are you saying that if the president acted illegally, that the case shouldn't have been brought???
Look, I support President Obama and the policy that he is trying to implement, but I am confused...are you saying that if the president acted illegally, that the case shouldn't have been brought???
8
No wonder that both the NYT editorial board and President Obama are completely disconnected from the American public.
They don’t understand our system of values.
If the policies of President Obama had the popular support, then the political party promoting his views would be in control of the Congress, meaning both the Senate and the House.
Mr. Obama committed the deadly sins on the campaign trail in 2008 and 2012 by promising the things he couldn’t fulfill. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, your political party will pay the price…
If president Obama revived the US economy without increasing the national debt for $10 trillion dollars, it would have been a great success. At the price tag of $10 trillion, the current economic results are extremely disappointing.
The economic problems in Mexico, Latin America and the rest of the world cannot be solved by bringing the dozens millions illegal immigrants here to America, but by exporting the sound economic, constitutional and anti-corruption principles across the globe. If the undocumented immigrants can be productive here, they could be equally productive in their native countries.
You don’t solve the problems by bringing the dozens millions illegal immigrants to America but by exporting the principles that made us strong all over the world. That’s how you pull the billions of people out of poverty and misery.
That’s something both the NYT editors and the White House failed to understand.
They don’t understand our system of values.
If the policies of President Obama had the popular support, then the political party promoting his views would be in control of the Congress, meaning both the Senate and the House.
Mr. Obama committed the deadly sins on the campaign trail in 2008 and 2012 by promising the things he couldn’t fulfill. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, your political party will pay the price…
If president Obama revived the US economy without increasing the national debt for $10 trillion dollars, it would have been a great success. At the price tag of $10 trillion, the current economic results are extremely disappointing.
The economic problems in Mexico, Latin America and the rest of the world cannot be solved by bringing the dozens millions illegal immigrants here to America, but by exporting the sound economic, constitutional and anti-corruption principles across the globe. If the undocumented immigrants can be productive here, they could be equally productive in their native countries.
You don’t solve the problems by bringing the dozens millions illegal immigrants to America but by exporting the principles that made us strong all over the world. That’s how you pull the billions of people out of poverty and misery.
That’s something both the NYT editors and the White House failed to understand.
9
You probably don't realize that the people who are NOT watching Fox have completely different "values" and "principals" than you mention.
Thank goodness they are still the majority - as seen in presidential elections. The congressional districts have been so distorted by gerrymandering by the republicans that a win by the Democrats was not possible - in spite of the facts that the Democrats received more votes. That's our democracy for you.
Thank goodness they are still the majority - as seen in presidential elections. The congressional districts have been so distorted by gerrymandering by the republicans that a win by the Democrats was not possible - in spite of the facts that the Democrats received more votes. That's our democracy for you.
2
My understanding is that the judge in question has made a procedural legal observation, noting that normally there is a 90 day process whereby the public and other can comment on the proposed changes. The Administration has the opportunity to hear the comments, consider them, and respond. This process, that is the normal one, seems entirely reasonable. What's the rush?
14
Sure, what's the rush? We've only listening to politicking and fear-mongering over "immigration reform" for a decade or so. The idea that a period of "public comment" is anything but long since passed is a procedural ruse by the litigants and the judge, revealing how little they have by way of substantive argument.
Perhaps the Obama administration should wait another 90 days for public comment, especially by immigrants and their families, and then, on that basis, issue an even more expansive executive order covering more deserving circumstances.
Perhaps the Obama administration should wait another 90 days for public comment, especially by immigrants and their families, and then, on that basis, issue an even more expansive executive order covering more deserving circumstances.
...a 'ruse' to you...good policy and procedures to me. In the end, who knows, the deliberative process might make for better law. I repeat, what's the rush? Our President, certainly took his time to decide that he was going to use his executive powers (How many years is he in power?). Why is it that when he HE finally decides, we should all like little sheep follow?
The Republicans are not a valid adversarial party: they are saboteurs and traitors, with not a single positive policy to offer the citizens of this country. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt. The sooner they go the way of the Whigs, the better. They are a blight on this country.
20
I'm not a Repub, voted as a Dem all my life.
Fail to see how categorizing everyone in one party by the actions of some in that party is any different from characterizing everyone in a racial group, or a gender, or a religion by the actions of some in those groups. We will never get anything done as long as Repubs and Dems remain prejudiced against each other.
Fail to see how categorizing everyone in one party by the actions of some in that party is any different from characterizing everyone in a racial group, or a gender, or a religion by the actions of some in those groups. We will never get anything done as long as Repubs and Dems remain prejudiced against each other.
Democrats will be wise to make good use of this gift handed to them so serendipitously by an over zealous activist judge. Don't waste it in 2016!
17
Pretty clear that these Democrat camp followers have not invested 20 minutes to actually read the Memorandum and Order signed by Jedge Hanen. Typical.
Emperor Obama took his unlawful action "only after years of failed efforts by Congress to pass any immigration reform" - so that makes it OK?
It's not the President's job to determine unilaterally that America's immigration laws require "reform". It's his job to honor his oath of office and see to it that our laws are properly enforced - even on his party's future constituents.
It's not the President's job to determine unilaterally that America's immigration laws require "reform". It's his job to honor his oath of office and see to it that our laws are properly enforced - even on his party's future constituents.
18
What about Emperor Boehner who refused to let the House vote on a bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate because he was afraid that if he let the House vote they would pass the bill?
1
JudgeHanen danced around no legal or factual points. Have you even read the Memorandumand Order?
Judge Hanen is a credit to the Federal Bench. In this case as well as many others on which he has written, his findings and conclusions are presented with sound logic as well as clarity of thought and expression. Here, he follows the law as difficult as it may be for true Obama-ite believers to understand.
Judge Hanen is a credit to the Federal Bench. In this case as well as many others on which he has written, his findings and conclusions are presented with sound logic as well as clarity of thought and expression. Here, he follows the law as difficult as it may be for true Obama-ite believers to understand.
9
Assault? Sorry no; rather a hello, let us not ignore the separation of powers doctrine of the Constituion which the President seems to be inclined to ignore when it is is inconvenient to be bound by.
15
It seems more than coincidental that Judge Andrew Hanen was nominated by former President George H. W. Bush in 2002. Is he one of the GOP's "secret weapon"? Just sayin'...
1
It's high time for the Republicans to produce legislation on what to do with the 12-15 million so called 'illegals' in the nation, many of whom came as children. They could institute national ID cards and mandate house to house searches. Create concentration camps as holding pens prior to expulsion. It would be the largest movement of displaced persons in the industrialized world since the chaos that followed World War Two.
The reason they don't do this is not out of sympathy for hard working would be citizens or due to the harm it would cause the nation. They don't do anything because it would deny the GOP the immigrant issue as a tool of exploitation every single election, which they would utilize from now until doomsday.
The reason they don't do this is not out of sympathy for hard working would be citizens or due to the harm it would cause the nation. They don't do anything because it would deny the GOP the immigrant issue as a tool of exploitation every single election, which they would utilize from now until doomsday.
10
Or... they could enforce universal and mandatory e-Verify to cut off employment opportunities for people living illegally in the country, and stop granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are living illegally in the country. Then see what happens to those 12-15 million, if they don't give up their materialistic dreams and go home. Then, after five to ten years, consider granting an amnesty to those who are left. The reason they don't do this is that they want more Democrat voters and more cheap labor, and they don't give a damn about the Americans, many of them African-Americans, who can't get a job because employers have a ready supply of lighter-skinned, "hardworking" workers.
2
The sad fact of the matter is that Republicans and Democrats condoned the illegal immigration for all these years, because businesses wanted the cheap labor.
Republicans representing many business interests were very happy to have an undocumented underclass paid off the books -- it kept wages and taxes down.
In reality the Republicans have no intention of serious campaigns of deportation, they like the status quo just the way it was. They just don't want the immigrants getting fair wages & FICA.
Republicans representing many business interests were very happy to have an undocumented underclass paid off the books -- it kept wages and taxes down.
In reality the Republicans have no intention of serious campaigns of deportation, they like the status quo just the way it was. They just don't want the immigrants getting fair wages & FICA.
8
Figured the NYT would pitch a fit and fall in it
(1) Immigration policy is the province of the Federal Government - that means ALL the government - US House of Representatives, Senate & POTUS
It is not solely up to POTUS
(2) The immigration laws - passed by Congress & duly signed by a PTOUS - say these people are here ILLEGALLY & are to be deported if caught
(3) Yes when there is more work to be done than can be done, then POTUS can set priorities.
POTUS can say First we go after the felons, then gangs etc etc etc & at the bottom of the list to track down & deport are groups A, B & C (but if A, B or C falls into Immigration's lap, they can't ignore them)
(4) No alien (citizen of another country) can work in the US without the proper work visa.
The Immigration law spells out the rules for a work visa.
The immigration law spells out the rules for getting a residency visa or permit
No Obama could not - on his own - go around handing out permission to work (de facto changing the laws on work visas) & social security cards to people whom the law says CAN NOT HAVE ONE & should be deported
No Obama could not - on his own - go around giving residency permits for a duration of 3 years (de facto changing the laws) to people whom the laws says CAN NOT HAVE ONE & should be deported.
ANd quicherwhining that Congress hasn't changed the law the way you want it changed.
By refusing to make such changes, Congress has acted - they have said No & left the current law in place.
(1) Immigration policy is the province of the Federal Government - that means ALL the government - US House of Representatives, Senate & POTUS
It is not solely up to POTUS
(2) The immigration laws - passed by Congress & duly signed by a PTOUS - say these people are here ILLEGALLY & are to be deported if caught
(3) Yes when there is more work to be done than can be done, then POTUS can set priorities.
POTUS can say First we go after the felons, then gangs etc etc etc & at the bottom of the list to track down & deport are groups A, B & C (but if A, B or C falls into Immigration's lap, they can't ignore them)
(4) No alien (citizen of another country) can work in the US without the proper work visa.
The Immigration law spells out the rules for a work visa.
The immigration law spells out the rules for getting a residency visa or permit
No Obama could not - on his own - go around handing out permission to work (de facto changing the laws on work visas) & social security cards to people whom the law says CAN NOT HAVE ONE & should be deported
No Obama could not - on his own - go around giving residency permits for a duration of 3 years (de facto changing the laws) to people whom the laws says CAN NOT HAVE ONE & should be deported.
ANd quicherwhining that Congress hasn't changed the law the way you want it changed.
By refusing to make such changes, Congress has acted - they have said No & left the current law in place.
15
Congress has been really busy these last six years, acting through non-action!
1
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 Provides Procedures for the Judiciary to Investigate and Discipline Misconduct Committed by Federal Judges. Any litigant or member of the public can report a judge who acts unethically, as Judge Hanen did in this case by deliberately ignoring settled precedent in a nakedly political decision that will injure thousands of immigrants. Hopefully the Obama administration will bring this rogue judge to heel by reporting him to the U.S. Fifth Circuit for discipline..
5
Creating havoc on this immigration issue is just what the party of No wants. It lets slip the dogs of paranoia that Americans are being bled by foreigners, contributes to the mythology of presidential overreach, and provides cover for the do nothing Congress that has passed and punted more on this issue than the NFL. Why did these people sign on as public servants for a government they have no use for? Where are the Democrats to put the blame on a House that wastes what little time it spends in the Capitol on hearings on Benghazi, a Koch induced pipeline and avoids real dealmaking on meaningful issues such as tax reform, science research, public health, climate change, terrorism, education and campaign finance reform? Accomplishing nothing, abdicating responsibility, making a mess and blaming it on the President and threatening to shut down the government will be the legacy of these takers, we the people deserve better.
5
Here's a new twist to an old adage: Hardship cases make bad law.
Why do we bend over backwards to carve out exceptions to the law for illegal immigrants?
Deport them early and often.
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
Why do we bend over backwards to carve out exceptions to the law for illegal immigrants?
Deport them early and often.
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
11
you can help ....
boycott businesses that hire illegals:
restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, big box stores,
car washes, hospitals, etc.
THANKS
boycott businesses that hire illegals:
restaurants, hotels, supermarkets, big box stores,
car washes, hospitals, etc.
THANKS
it seems the rogue country has some rogue states within it....
2
Once again we see the Republicans playing petty partisan politics while others are earnestly trying to make things better in this country, and it's appalling. While they grandstand and play games, real people might pay the price.
4
Right. Because amnesty for 10 to 15 million illegal aliens is going to help poor and minority American citizens. But the poor and minorities are already on the Democrat plantation so it's OK for Obama to throw them under the bus.
1
I wonder what this means for our vaunted legal system, especially the federal court system which has had a reputation for integrity and administering justice fairly as it's courts demonstrated so well during the era of the civil rights movement in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and beyond. And now a U.S. District Court judge in Texas who has previously trumpeted his views on this critical political issue which divides the country, issues a temporary restraining order favorable to those views in a case where those issues are raised. And, as this editorial states, the plaintiff states' attorneys, knowing this judge's views to be favorable to their position, may have sought to have their case placed before him, a practice known as judge shopping, one of the most despicable judicial abuses in the history of our court systems, because it assumes that a judge will rule in a party's favor even before he gets the case. And the plaintiffs here obtain, at least preliminarily, a favorable ruling on their cause. It seems to me that a federal judges should first not make their political views known in public or in their court orders and rulings from the bench. And, second and most of all, if a judge senses that plaintiffs' attorneys are on a judge shopping quest to have their case assigned to him or her based on his or her political views or rulings, that judge should refuse to accept the case.
1
Complain all y'all like, this ends the illegal amnesty. It was foreseeable as Obama himself had said he didn't have the power.
7
He twice took an oath before a billion people to faithfully execute the laws, including the one that says undocumented aliens are to be deported unless they qualify for asylum. Richard Nixon was properly about to be impeached and removed for not faithfully executing the laws. Obama is lucky he is just being enjoined and not impeached.
6
"They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own."
That seems to be all they have to do to win elections. Why tempt fate by trying to make a meaningful contribution to society (or allowing someone else to)?
At least the judge, by his words and actions, is honest enough to reveal his deeply held contempt for Obama. Tongue and groove fit with the GOP.
That seems to be all they have to do to win elections. Why tempt fate by trying to make a meaningful contribution to society (or allowing someone else to)?
At least the judge, by his words and actions, is honest enough to reveal his deeply held contempt for Obama. Tongue and groove fit with the GOP.
1
Under the illegal, unconstitutional Obama Nullification of Laws Doctrine can a president summarily repeal Obama's massive tax increases by instructing the IRS to existing law and only enforce a 15% federal income tax rate on those Americans who actually pull the wagon (i.e., those who actually pay federal income taxes)? If not, why not?
6
Not surprised that a Republican appointee based in the Rio Grande Valley would do this.
2
the problem is not with Republican appointees. it's with this affirmative action President who is in over his head. The President doesn't make the laws.he's supposed to enforce them. All of them. Not just the one's he likes.
Just another example of Obama playing King and the media following along as his court jester. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
"That move — which Mr. Obama took only after years of failed efforts by Congress to pass any immigration reform — triggered the fury of congressional Republicans" - Frustration with Congress not bending to your will is not an excuse I could find in the Constitution for Obama doing whatever he liked.
"What he did not do was dispute the president’s broad authority to decide whom to deport" - He also didn't say the moon was made of green cheese. As the article explained, it was a preliminary injunction. Absence of language regarding the president's "broad authority" is not the same as affirming it. Not even close.
"He danced around the fundamental point — as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states." - Fair point. But Obama is not the sole voice of the "federal government" no matter how much he thinks he is.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform." - Interesting analogy because just like Obamacare case (King v. Burwell), Obama is basically issuing decrees from the throne. We have laws and a Constitution in this country. No matter how much Obama may think he is right, he is not above those laws.
"That move — which Mr. Obama took only after years of failed efforts by Congress to pass any immigration reform — triggered the fury of congressional Republicans" - Frustration with Congress not bending to your will is not an excuse I could find in the Constitution for Obama doing whatever he liked.
"What he did not do was dispute the president’s broad authority to decide whom to deport" - He also didn't say the moon was made of green cheese. As the article explained, it was a preliminary injunction. Absence of language regarding the president's "broad authority" is not the same as affirming it. Not even close.
"He danced around the fundamental point — as the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states." - Fair point. But Obama is not the sole voice of the "federal government" no matter how much he thinks he is.
"On immigration, the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts to address a pressing nationwide crisis, just as they have on health care reform." - Interesting analogy because just like Obamacare case (King v. Burwell), Obama is basically issuing decrees from the throne. We have laws and a Constitution in this country. No matter how much Obama may think he is right, he is not above those laws.
8
As your editorial states, “…the Supreme Court reiterated as recently as 2012 — that setting immigration policy is the prerogative of the federal government, not the states.” So it baffles the mind that Republican-governed states would still want to pursue a case, opposing President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, through the court system. But then this is what they have done for the past couple of decades – whenever a Democrat has been in the White House – rely heavily on the courts to stifle the executive branch.
We’ve now had a conservative majority on SCOTUS for over three decades. But we still managed to get landmark liberal legislation on healthcare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), validated as the law of the land. And yet, we have a Republican Congress repeatedly, 56 times at last count, trying to repeal the ACA to no avail. Later this spring, this same conservative SCOTUS will most likely uphold same sex marriage, a concept that is anathema to many of the same Republican-governed states opposing Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The Editorial Board’s conclusion hit the nail on the head, “They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.” The GOP often relies on the Supreme Court to undo the actions of a Democratic president. It boggles the mind to think what it would do if the SCOTUS flipped to a liberal majority? Beware GOP, what goes around, karma’s around!
We’ve now had a conservative majority on SCOTUS for over three decades. But we still managed to get landmark liberal legislation on healthcare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), validated as the law of the land. And yet, we have a Republican Congress repeatedly, 56 times at last count, trying to repeal the ACA to no avail. Later this spring, this same conservative SCOTUS will most likely uphold same sex marriage, a concept that is anathema to many of the same Republican-governed states opposing Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The Editorial Board’s conclusion hit the nail on the head, “They are good at unleashing rage against Mr. Obama’s supposed lawlessness, but they have no meaningful solutions of their own.” The GOP often relies on the Supreme Court to undo the actions of a Democratic president. It boggles the mind to think what it would do if the SCOTUS flipped to a liberal majority? Beware GOP, what goes around, karma’s around!
2
So you're happy to rely on the courts when they rule Left but find them objectionable when they rule otherwise?
2
In the event that a future Republican president is similarly obstructed by a judge identified as Democratic, I trust that the NTY's editorial board will take the same disapproving position.
8
What would be a reasonable test for when a president was exceeding their authority? I would suggest asking first whether the president has the means to carry out an action required by a law. In the case of deportation Congress has not provided, nor has the President requested, funds sufficient to deport all undocumented immigrants. A next logical question would be whether he is complying with the law to the extent possible. This point is up for debate, but insofar as President Obama is not failing to utilize resources at his disposal he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Now, may he issue green cards or require that other benefits be provided because Congress has failed to pass additional bills on immigration? There, I think the President oversteps in that Congress has a right to inaction and he may not craft new law merely because the legislative branch has failed to act. And it should be kept in mind there is existing instruction in the form of law from Congress to the President on specific limits and prioritization in issuing green cards. Congress has limited options as to forcing the President to faithfully administer existing law and no stomach for impeachment. So it would behoove all parties concerned to come to the table and reach an agreement, because more than just the immigration issue is at stake. We are in deep water in terms of the Constitution and the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. It is more than time for compromise.
4
How many wake-up calls do the Hispanic citizens in the US need before they get off their butts and vote, vote, vote in larger numbers than they have in the past? Until the growing numbers of Hispanic citizens start using their ballot-box power to help rid this country of so-called "conservative" Republican regressive obstructionists, people like Judge Hanen will continue have their way with us.
1
How long will it take until white citizens get off their butts to get rid of bleeding heart liberals like Obama trying to have their way with us?
Of course if I had said this first it would be "racist".
When do Hispanic voters simply become American voters? This is the United States, not Hispanola.
Of course if I had said this first it would be "racist".
When do Hispanic voters simply become American voters? This is the United States, not Hispanola.
Less than a week ago, the Times published an editorial on President Obama's decision to seek Congressional authorization to wage war on ISIS. The editorial described the President's action as "indefensibly late," presumably in recognition of the Constitutional requirement that Congress, not the President, has the authority to wage war, under the War Powers Clause.
And so it is with Immigration. Yes, it is the Federal government, not the states, that has the authority to regulate immigration. But it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to pass laws. And there are already laws on the books governing many fundamental aspects of immigration policy.
And the simple truth is that, whether or not one agrees with current law, only Congress has the power to rewrite the law (with, of course the President's signature or a veto override by Congress).
Attempting to overrule our law by invoking "prosecutorial discretion" is utter nonsense. The wholesale disregard of the law of the land by the President is simply not what prosecutorial discretion is about. Rather, such discretion is reserved for, you guessed it, prosecutors.
The Editorial Board clearly does not like present immigration policy, and doesn't like Republicans who support many aspects of current law. This is the Editorial Board's privilege.
But it goes beyond the pale to recommend the abrogation of the basic prlnciples of constiuttional law fundamental to our democracy.
And so it is with Immigration. Yes, it is the Federal government, not the states, that has the authority to regulate immigration. But it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to pass laws. And there are already laws on the books governing many fundamental aspects of immigration policy.
And the simple truth is that, whether or not one agrees with current law, only Congress has the power to rewrite the law (with, of course the President's signature or a veto override by Congress).
Attempting to overrule our law by invoking "prosecutorial discretion" is utter nonsense. The wholesale disregard of the law of the land by the President is simply not what prosecutorial discretion is about. Rather, such discretion is reserved for, you guessed it, prosecutors.
The Editorial Board clearly does not like present immigration policy, and doesn't like Republicans who support many aspects of current law. This is the Editorial Board's privilege.
But it goes beyond the pale to recommend the abrogation of the basic prlnciples of constiuttional law fundamental to our democracy.
9
To the contrary, the Republicans have a long-term solution, and the president and his supporters do not. The only way to enforce a limit on legal immigration is through deterrence. Unauthorized aliens must be deterred from even attempting to enter the country by rigorous enforcement of the law both at the border and in the interior of the U.S. Living in the U.S. in violation of the law must be made uncomfortable, with greater costs than benefits. If we're not prepared to do that, we should stop pretending to have a limit on legal immigration. We might as well invite everyone in the world who wants to, to come to the U.S. to live and work. That's kind of what President Obama and his supporters are doing. Just don't get convicted of a serious crime, we won't enforce the law, and whenever the numbers get big again, we'll promulgate another big amnesty. That's a meaningful solution? I call it a formula for permanent dysfunction. Thank you, Judge Hanen!
10
It is, and always will be about :the Hispanic lobby and democratic party political needs. The concept of what is in national good, a reformed immigration policy that benefits not just immigrants from Latin America is not part of the Obama "executive orders ".. The very fact that 26 states see that it is a political move is the cause for the lawsuit, a true immigration proposal would not just benefit Hispanics.
8
The president had a long overdue political debt to the Hispanic Caucus that he finally made good on. Partisans will argue until they are blue in the face that this is about everything but that.
The democratic party has managed, once again, to engage in a unilateral highly divisive action for its own political gain. The country will be ripped apart. Thanks, Obama.
The democratic party has managed, once again, to engage in a unilateral highly divisive action for its own political gain. The country will be ripped apart. Thanks, Obama.
1
Judge Hanen is allowing spiteful intolerance by republicans to create havoc among immigrants; their 'sin' being 'undocumented' (as, incidentally, all U.S. forefathers have), willfully ignorant of the vital jobs, many so menial in nature, that no self-respecting 'native' North American (imported native, that is) would accept or be able to do those tasks, those services we take for granted, and which allow the rest of us to do more edifying things (?). This country is made by immigrants, with or without papers, which flow is poorly regulated, as the immigration system is badly broken. As long as workers are needed, the flow will continue. A country that used to pride itself for its tolerance, open-arms, and empathy, has become 'cold' indeed. The claims that immigrants 'endanger America' are preposterous, cheap shots by ignorant, prejudiced and petty, resentful men, with 'no skin in the game'. And further, by folks following Fox Noise alarmists' false claims by crying wolf.
4
After reading the entire case, the analysis and ruling (replete with sympathetic musings from the court), the Jude used quite contorted analysis to include the 26 other state had "standing" based upon Procedural basis and not based on actual Standing as the one state- Texas. This should definitely has not been but to only excluded Texas in the implementation of the program. The judge was quite aware that any appeal would take time and it seems that was the intent to cause significant delay by including state that simply did not bear the burden of proof. It seems this was done solely for the purpose of "Showing Obama who is really THE BOSS" and "don't mess with TEXAS", mindset.
2
I can't imagine being poor or poor and in danger and deciding to illegally cross the border to the US without the prospect of finding a job. No, they know they can find jobs, live frugally, keep their heads down and they are better off, and/or safer - except from being deported. Meanwhile they work very hard and are exploited mercilessly. And children are born here or arrived as young children. The executive action would result in people to be made legal employees and that would cause employers to actually transfer to the government the taxes involved. Bad - drives up costs. CEO make less? No way!
Now providing the incentive for illegal immigration clearly has benefits for those hiring them and no downside whatsoever. Of course those responsible for incentivizing the problem would be against the executive action. They are the same sort that want to drive more of their most basic supporters into the ranks of the poor. You see, they don't care who they pay slave wages to. They are the Guardians Of Plutocracy.
Now providing the incentive for illegal immigration clearly has benefits for those hiring them and no downside whatsoever. Of course those responsible for incentivizing the problem would be against the executive action. They are the same sort that want to drive more of their most basic supporters into the ranks of the poor. You see, they don't care who they pay slave wages to. They are the Guardians Of Plutocracy.
10
My family moved here from Ireland in the early 1900s as impoverished orphans. They were no criminals or job stealers. They were people (young children I might add) who had nothing: no food, no shelter, no family. They did not seek to destroy America's job market. They did not seek to attack the U.S. in any way. Now, three generations later, I am a descendant from those orphans in a prosperous, working class family that contributes greatly to our community and our nation. We must move away from these archaic laws banning people from entering our nation of freedom, be educated about the people running our government, and elect people who will make progressive changes, such as allowing the settlement of 5,000,000 impoverished PEOPLE (not aliens, PEOPLE) be a part of our superb, diverse country. Only then can we truly call ourselves a nation of the people.
5
That this happened in Texas says it all.
5
Obviously Judge Hanen has a toxic political bias and should not be ruling on this issue since he follows his own political predisposition instead of the law. Obviously he will rule the suit has merit and will not lift the injunction. The appellate courts will do that for him.
4
In the last paragraph, "...the Republicans seem to want only to savage the president’s efforts ..." the author ALMOST has it right. The truth is they only want to savage the president. Period. They have throughout his entire presidency, and they will continue to do so through the remainder of his term, whether any of the president's actions make sense or not.
8
Since Mr. Obama and certain elected officials have chosen to substantially reward those folks who have broken our laws with a "get out of jail free" card,
I would appreciate a list of those laws passed by the same elected officials that I may expect to be permitted to break with the same impunity and commenserate rewards.
I would appreciate a list of those laws passed by the same elected officials that I may expect to be permitted to break with the same impunity and commenserate rewards.
5
A more humane and realistic policy might be to just open our borders to all who can get to them and wish to cross and make lives here. After all, with the president's amnesty program, rammed at the point of what he claims is presidential power a ton of Americans reject, those multitudes obviously will be sufficiently incentivized to come -- establish yourselves as an illegal presence in our country in large enough numbers, and who knows? Perhaps in twenty years you'll be lucky enough to have a U.S. president as unwise as the one we have now, and green cards will be forthcoming without issue.
Federal judge Hanen's injunction against the president's acts to legalize millions of illegals and give them work permits is impelled by the rejection of this policy by 26 of our states. Mr. Obama believes that he's within the boundaries of the power defined for the president by the constitution.
Yet, he's believed that before when he arrogated power he didn't possess to attempt things that he wanted but he couldn't convince Congress to sanction. There have been 20 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decisions against Mr. Obama (which includes the liberal justices), and overwhelmingly, those rulings struck down his arrogation of authority not actually possessed by the president.
What odds might we suppose the Vegas touts will be giving that the inevitable appeal of Judge Hanen's ruling will precipitate the same U.S. Supreme Court spanking of a U.S. president? And likely 9-0, as well?
Federal judge Hanen's injunction against the president's acts to legalize millions of illegals and give them work permits is impelled by the rejection of this policy by 26 of our states. Mr. Obama believes that he's within the boundaries of the power defined for the president by the constitution.
Yet, he's believed that before when he arrogated power he didn't possess to attempt things that he wanted but he couldn't convince Congress to sanction. There have been 20 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decisions against Mr. Obama (which includes the liberal justices), and overwhelmingly, those rulings struck down his arrogation of authority not actually possessed by the president.
What odds might we suppose the Vegas touts will be giving that the inevitable appeal of Judge Hanen's ruling will precipitate the same U.S. Supreme Court spanking of a U.S. president? And likely 9-0, as well?
8
Cue the histrionics about the devils on the SCOTUS, the importance of the next election to the replacement of the sleeping Ginsburg, Citizens United, Koch Brothers, and maybe even a reference to Romney thrown in for good measure?
I hope the members of The Times's Editorial Board are getting all the rest they need. They seem to have become severely high strung lately and prone to outbursts. It cannot be easy guarding this president.
I hope the members of The Times's Editorial Board are getting all the rest they need. They seem to have become severely high strung lately and prone to outbursts. It cannot be easy guarding this president.
3
While Judge Hanen may well be out to lunch and is likely to have his ruling quashed on appeal, it is nonetheless disappointing that the Times editorial board evidences no understanding of the difference between jurisprudence and politics.
The board writes, "However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy, he is attempting to tackle a huge and long-running national problem...." While the board's claim is essentially true, it is a political claim, not a legal, let alone Constitutional, claim. If the board wants to oppose the ruling, the appropriate thing would be to make a legal or Constitutional argument against Hanen.
The board should be careful what it wishes for; they just might get it, but with unintended consequences. Power is accrued by any branch of government when it is popular, rather than as a simple power grab. Folks are willing to give them the authority to do what it is people want done. However, once the power becomes vested in an institution, it remains, now established and legitimated, even when we no longer like what is being done.
The board writes, "However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy, he is attempting to tackle a huge and long-running national problem...." While the board's claim is essentially true, it is a political claim, not a legal, let alone Constitutional, claim. If the board wants to oppose the ruling, the appropriate thing would be to make a legal or Constitutional argument against Hanen.
The board should be careful what it wishes for; they just might get it, but with unintended consequences. Power is accrued by any branch of government when it is popular, rather than as a simple power grab. Folks are willing to give them the authority to do what it is people want done. However, once the power becomes vested in an institution, it remains, now established and legitimated, even when we no longer like what is being done.
6
For a country founded by immigrants, America sure has become mighty afraid of them.
8
C'mon, JG. You got it wrong again! You left out the word LEGAL before "immigrants". And I doubt we are afraid of Legal Immigrants...........
1
By any reasonable measure, one either assumes the grave public responsibility as a sitting judge or performs as a political hack, not both at the same time.
Judge Hanen, a right-wing activist who happens to sit on a bench has shown that he takes his constitutional responsibility seriously enough to serve as a GOP obstructionist.
The key phrase in this editorial appears at the end with the words "they have no meaningful solutions of their own.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The key phrase in this editorial appears at the end where it suggests that Republicans "have no meaningful solutions of their own" -- to anything.
Judge Hanen, a right-wing activist who happens to sit on a bench has shown that he takes his constitutional responsibility seriously enough to serve as a GOP obstructionist.
The key phrase in this editorial appears at the end with the words "they have no meaningful solutions of their own.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
The key phrase in this editorial appears at the end where it suggests that Republicans "have no meaningful solutions of their own" -- to anything.
6
It seems like, politically, the party is stupid is doubling down on dumb. From the Sun-Times:
U.S. House Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Tuesday that he simply does not understand the logic behind a Republican move that resulted in a federal judge blocking executive orders made by President Barack Obama — a portion of which would allow parents here illegally to stay in the United States with their children who were born here and are citizens.
“Do you really believe that their children will ever forget who has treated them so cruelly?” asked Gutierrez, noting that Hispanics have strong voter turnouts in presidential elections. “The logic of this, politically, just evades me. It speaks volumes of just how mean and xenophobic you can be — to risk and to put in jeopardy the political future that you have as a national party.”
U.S. House Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Tuesday that he simply does not understand the logic behind a Republican move that resulted in a federal judge blocking executive orders made by President Barack Obama — a portion of which would allow parents here illegally to stay in the United States with their children who were born here and are citizens.
“Do you really believe that their children will ever forget who has treated them so cruelly?” asked Gutierrez, noting that Hispanics have strong voter turnouts in presidential elections. “The logic of this, politically, just evades me. It speaks volumes of just how mean and xenophobic you can be — to risk and to put in jeopardy the political future that you have as a national party.”
1
"What he did not do was dispute the president’s broad authority to decide whom to deport, which is exactly what the Obama administration did in prioritizing the removal of immigrants who pose a threat to public safety or national security."
Prosecutorial discretion may allow the President the power to decide who to deport. It doesn't grant him the power to issue work authorizations not authorized by law.
Prosecutorial discretion may allow the President the power to decide who to deport. It doesn't grant him the power to issue work authorizations not authorized by law.
5
As I recall, immigration reform has to be completed by the Senate, not just Obama. I also recall that the democrats did not support Bush when he tried to reform immigration, of course neither did the republicans, but the dems wanted it as an election issue. I also remember how Obama was going to do something within his first year in office, when dems controlled both Houses, and of course did nothing. We live in a Democracy, NYT, not a fiefdom where democrats can do whatever they want and the opposition are simply disparaged. It is a tough issue, and our President must come up with a plan with the Senate, that's the way our gov't works. It'll be great fun to read these pages when we've got a republican in power and he has a closed, secretive, combative administration like this one.
5
It is only one more gambit of a melange of pathetic, reactionary and people left behind eating Mr. Obama's dust. It serves them nothing but the contempt of Hispanics who are the swing vote in the next presidential election. The party of no, will not be occupying the White House anytime soon.
2
I'm an immigrant .It is time for honesty.The judge is not against immigrants as I see it.He is against lawlessness.Looking at our country more legal immigrants would benefit all of us.The headline of the editorial misleading.I have many hispanic friends who agree with me they want to see changes in the way we treat immigration but don't want open borders
1
Wow, God forbid we follow the rule of law and the Constitution. You know that old dusty, out dated, document our President kind of heard of. Liberals only love Judicial activism when it suits their purpose, i.e same sex marriage.
4
This decision will consolidate Republican support from Latino/Hispanic voters for sure. Deporting the parents of American children is a GREAT move isn't it.
3
Who will be deported as a result of this ruling? Not one soul.
1
No. You have to deport the children when you deport the parents. Don't you?
Setting immigration policy may be the prerogative of the federal government, but any entity that can demonstrate a likelihood of suffering harm as a result of that policy - or any governmental action, municipal, state or federal - has standing to challenge that policy. (This could be described as a "fundamental point" of the American judicial system.) This judge held that the state of Texas and the other complainant entities had succeeded in demonstrating that likelihood. The policy-setting prerogative of the federal government is irrelevant to the issue of standing with regard to challenges to those policies.
Get better legal advisors.
Get better legal advisors.
1
When will Mr. Obama ever realize that he is not emperor! We have laws for a reason and he cannot continue to ignore the rule of law!
4
I love liberal hypocrisy. Many support open borders and granting amnesty to illegals yet at the same time bemoan: rising income inequality, underfunded schools, child poverty, inadequate government services, lack of unionized jobs, etc...You'd think these ivory tower "educated" people would be able to connect the dots.
The US cannot continue being a first world country while simultaneously importing third world poverty from Latin American countries. I'm not looking forward to the day the United States of America becomes the United States of Mexico.
The US cannot continue being a first world country while simultaneously importing third world poverty from Latin American countries. I'm not looking forward to the day the United States of America becomes the United States of Mexico.
8
I would think Republicans would be able to connect the dots that the liberal society, with a 90% marginal tax rate, government investing HEAVILY into the society and banks strictly regulated, gave the world the richest, most equitable and stable economy the world has ever seen . . . the United States in the late 40s, 50s and 60s. The conservatives want to return us to the early 1900s . . . some VERY rich, a lot very poor, and most barely hanging on. Great vision.
1
Ho Hum. Another day at the office for Obama.
The Republicans will punch themselves out on an issue that they can't win and will alienate another bunch of voters.
Not a bad return on the investment of a single executive order.
(Stay tuned, there is a lot more good news to come, thanks to Boehner.)
The Republicans will punch themselves out on an issue that they can't win and will alienate another bunch of voters.
Not a bad return on the investment of a single executive order.
(Stay tuned, there is a lot more good news to come, thanks to Boehner.)
4
The only agenda I see the Republicans pursuing is to derail any of President Obama's attempts to amend the country's most afflicting problems such as Health Care, Gun control, Gay rights, and of course Immigration. Today's decision by Judge Hanen shows how deeply the division is amongst the 3 Branches of our Government.
6
Come on! You once again left out abortion.........
We are well on our way to 500 million Americans in this century. By any measure we are well past any reasonable, sustainable population. When the administration and liberals like the nyt talk of "immigration reform" they mean a free pass into the u.s. for them and their relatives. We all know our insane wholesale importation of unskilled, uneducated, people with huge families is good for the immigrants. what is becoming more clear as time goes on, is that it is not good for the average citizen of the u.s. When one looks beyond the heart tugging emotional pleas for letting illegals stay and bringing more in, a review of the facts shows most if not all of our major problems can be traced to our exploding population: school crowding, income inequality, unemployment, loss of open space, increasing global warming emissions, resource depletion, and on and on. None of the problems we face as a nation and a planet are going to be solved by the addition of a couple hundred million more Americans. We are already the third most populous nation on earth. Look at India and china, the only two more populous countries on earth. What is so attractive about trying to catch them?
5
Regardless of the political issues, this case will be decided on the legal issues. Many of Obama's defenders cite the fact that the Congress hasn't acted to change the immigration laws so the president acted unilaterally. But the fact is we did, and still do, have laws on the books that were passed by the Congress and signed into law by a sitting president. Are the laws outdated and in need of change? Probably so, but it is not within the president's job description to just unilaterally change the law, which is what he is doing by giving green cards to illegal aliens who, under the law as written and still in effect, do not qualify for that privilege. What the president is attempting to do is far more than simply a deferral of the deportation process; rather, it provides a legal entry path into the United States for people who, under the law, should be deported. I am not a lawyer but I think the courts will overturn this because you have to have your head in the sand not to realize that the president has unilaterally decided not only to not enforce the laws he was sworn to uphold, but he is also changing established law. It's as if our Constitution doesn't even exist anymore.
10
The immigration issue will be solved in much the same way that the gay marriage issue is being solved. The GOP will continue to exploit "say no" immigration positions as red meat issuse until either or both of these two changes happen.
1. A majority of Republican voters, including their large low-information segment, recognize that they are being played by the Republican Party and are embarrassed or disgusted by GOP elected officials.
2. More likely change will come when Hispanics become a real national voting bloc, which they still are not, and vote against Republican nay-sayers in mass.
Ultimately, Hispanics must organize and vote if they wish to end the GOP's cynical use of the immigration issue.
1. A majority of Republican voters, including their large low-information segment, recognize that they are being played by the Republican Party and are embarrassed or disgusted by GOP elected officials.
2. More likely change will come when Hispanics become a real national voting bloc, which they still are not, and vote against Republican nay-sayers in mass.
Ultimately, Hispanics must organize and vote if they wish to end the GOP's cynical use of the immigration issue.
7
This is more than a "judge's assault on immigration;" it is a continuation of the largely Southern Republican assault on President Obama. It is a new not-so Civil War that today fights against a humane policy to keep families of illegal immigrants intact until Congress provides a solution to the over 10 million, mostly Hispanic immigrants. Yesterday, it was another Republican Southern judge, Roy Moore, attempting to defy the federal court in granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama. And before that, it was southern judges condoning harsh restrictions on women's reproductive rights in an unending campaign to undermine Roe v. Wade. This is the toxic stew of racism and misogyny that has infected the modern Republican Party and has produced full-scale legislative rebellion and dysfunction in Congress. It is a party that condemns bigotry and intolerance abroad while condoning it at home.
14
Where does it say, anywhere, that a "humane policy" is required in any government action? Well, maybe the Bush/Cheney water boarding of prisoners of war could have used a little "humane" in it somewhere. Talk about "bigotry and intolerance" - I would say that episode was a pretty good example. Of course, one President's Executive Order is another President's abuse.
1
Well past time for President Obama to issue an executive order requiring all Americans to breathe.
1
Of course, that does not include those people water-boarded by the Republicans, does it?
My thought is that there are so many conservatives that bemoan 'activist judges' until a decision like this. Then they cry 'he is doing the right thing to protect the country!' PB
4
How quickly Liberals forget: Obama himself said on 22 occasions that he did not have the authority to unilaterally change immigration policy. And then one day he arose, believing he DID have the authority. The judge is essentially agreeing with Obama's initial assessment of presidential power. I'm not sure how that is "judicial activism".
The judge's opinion--regarding the costs of immigration to the states--which arise out of the Federal Government's refusal to enforce, is spot on. Illegal immigrants have filled up our schools with their children, filled up our prisons with their criminals, and filled our hospital emergency rooms with their sick and injured. Instead of spending billions taking care of illegals, we could use that money to take care of American citizens. Oh...but that's a heartless stance, isn't it?
The judge's opinion--regarding the costs of immigration to the states--which arise out of the Federal Government's refusal to enforce, is spot on. Illegal immigrants have filled up our schools with their children, filled up our prisons with their criminals, and filled our hospital emergency rooms with their sick and injured. Instead of spending billions taking care of illegals, we could use that money to take care of American citizens. Oh...but that's a heartless stance, isn't it?
2
I had a related thought... there are so many liberals who laud the President's humanitarian executive order. I wonder how they'll feel when the next president issues a similar order granting blanket amnesty to the unborn?
2
The Republicans know they'll need Hispanic votes to win in 2016, so they're playing a double hand:
Pandering to their base to block any movement on immigration now; and hoping that the immigrant US citizen community will have forgotten this by the time it comes to vote in 2016.
Pandering to their base to block any movement on immigration now; and hoping that the immigrant US citizen community will have forgotten this by the time it comes to vote in 2016.
4
When did compassion become a four letter word? Perhaps about the same time the term alien was used to describe children. I would respect the rule of law more if judges would acknowledge just how hard it is to make decisions that will have negative impacts on large numbers of people. Instead, some seem to enjoy the opportunity.
3
What is intransigence to the editors is the checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution.
The judge rightly said that Obama's policy in the instant case “endangers America” and is “an open invitation to the most dangerous criminals in society.”
How true! All that a narcodealer has to do is to sneak across the border, produce a child and he is subject to the protection of Obama's diktat. That is not how America is supposed to work/
Enough said.
The judge rightly said that Obama's policy in the instant case “endangers America” and is “an open invitation to the most dangerous criminals in society.”
How true! All that a narcodealer has to do is to sneak across the border, produce a child and he is subject to the protection of Obama's diktat. That is not how America is supposed to work/
Enough said.
6
Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen, an appointment of George W. Bush. When will we stop having to pay for the consequences of the Bush II Adminstration? Aren't the mess in the Middle East and the Great Recession enough?
4
"IMMIGRATION"? We are not talking about people who immigrated as did so many in past generations; we are talking about people who have defied our laws.
14
The corruption of the judiciary by the GOP is truly despicable. Any moral high ground the courts in this country possessed deteriorated following the Bush v. Gore fix, and the rampant politicization of the courts, especially in the southern districts, has merely accelerated since then. The GOP doesn't need to win at the ballot box - with this and the upcoming Supreme Court ACA ruling, the courts seek not just to nullify the will of the people and the Federal Government, but the very fact of President Obama's two terms in office.
5
I believe in the 'balance' of powers' that our government is founded upon. If a Judge wants to slow down what the President wants to do on immigration; that is the judge's right. While the NYT takes issue with the judge's action; I believe this is our system of government working at its 'best and worst'. Checks and balances keeps us on the middle road and curtails both the 'left and the right' from taking our nation on a joyride. While I agree with the President (and not the Judge), I believe we have to let our form of government work rather than to let one politician get their way. And keep in mind, when a GOP President is in office, you will appreciate this issue much more than right now....
9
President Obama, by being reasonable, by hoping against hope that cooler heads will prevail --and they have not, nor will they-- again backs down. The President needs to proceed unimpeded with his reforms and policies via signing statement and executive decrees, and proceed to govern and execute the prerogatives of the Presidency.
Should the Courts disagree with his actions, they can refer him to Congress, and Congress can impeach him. It is time to end this charade. If Republicans do believe what they say about the President, and if the nation agrees, surely they will succeeding in removing the President.
This is the means for our Democracy and Republic to govern itself provided for in the Constitution, and it is time that we govern ourselves as a Democracy, to finish off the unelected encroachment of politicized courts, and to let this and future presidents govern.
Should the Courts disagree with his actions, they can refer him to Congress, and Congress can impeach him. It is time to end this charade. If Republicans do believe what they say about the President, and if the nation agrees, surely they will succeeding in removing the President.
This is the means for our Democracy and Republic to govern itself provided for in the Constitution, and it is time that we govern ourselves as a Democracy, to finish off the unelected encroachment of politicized courts, and to let this and future presidents govern.
4
Half the states in the country disagree that the President has this power.
How do you propose we decide how much power the President has?
Just leave it to the President to decide?
Of course, this issue will be decided in court.
How do you propose we decide how much power the President has?
Just leave it to the President to decide?
Of course, this issue will be decided in court.
13
I wouldn't permit the confederate states to decide anything.
What's a "confederate state"? I do not recall that in any of my modern history books. Does such a state exist? Where?
3
Obama is way out of line on this issue. The consequences are multifold. First, he is exceeding his authority by issuing an executive order on a matter that only Congress can legislate.Second, by allowing illegals to be leapfrogged over the millions who are trying to enter the US legally, he is undermining the existing laws. That, in itself, is also morally abhorrent. Third, giving illegals social security cards and the ability to get drivers licenses is de facto giving them the ability to register to vote. I think that really is Obama's goal... to get a new voting bloc beholden to Democrats.
The federal judge was correct in issuing a TRO. This matter should be heard by the courts. The plaintiffs consist of 26 states. Also, our duly elected Representatives do not favor this executive order and they represent us.
There are laws on the books now that this administration fails to uphold. The most important, I feel, is yo secure our borders. Obama refuses to do that.
The federal judge was correct in issuing a TRO. This matter should be heard by the courts. The plaintiffs consist of 26 states. Also, our duly elected Representatives do not favor this executive order and they represent us.
There are laws on the books now that this administration fails to uphold. The most important, I feel, is yo secure our borders. Obama refuses to do that.
18
Here's a thought: How about not rewarding illegal immigration? In response to the largesse of the American people allowing these illegal immigrants to stay, they give up the ability to become citizens, to vote, or to partake of ANY benefits and programs that are paid for by taxpayer citizens. In addition, we should repeal the law that allows anyone who is born in the US (even to illegal parents) to be able to claim citizenship.
We have a duty and right to know who is inside our borders. And we should be able to decide who gets to come. It's also a slap in the face to every law-abiding LEGAL immigrant and potential legal immigrant to reward these illegals by giving them the benefits of citizenship. And it diminishes the value and burden of being a citizen.
I am appalled that many people are willing to "help" illegal immigrants with services and rights when we ignore the responsibility of taking care of the rights and benefits of our own citizens. And this help usually comes from other peoples' pockets or scarce tax dollars diverted from citizens' needs (like the unemployed, veterans, etc.).
There's a cost to the open arms policy of illegal immigration but this paper, and the media in general like to pretend that we can't have that discussion because if we challenge their ideas, we are racist or stupid or backwards. But there's also a cost of ignoring laws and facts to support a position that this editorial board has taken - irrelevance.
We have a duty and right to know who is inside our borders. And we should be able to decide who gets to come. It's also a slap in the face to every law-abiding LEGAL immigrant and potential legal immigrant to reward these illegals by giving them the benefits of citizenship. And it diminishes the value and burden of being a citizen.
I am appalled that many people are willing to "help" illegal immigrants with services and rights when we ignore the responsibility of taking care of the rights and benefits of our own citizens. And this help usually comes from other peoples' pockets or scarce tax dollars diverted from citizens' needs (like the unemployed, veterans, etc.).
There's a cost to the open arms policy of illegal immigration but this paper, and the media in general like to pretend that we can't have that discussion because if we challenge their ideas, we are racist or stupid or backwards. But there's also a cost of ignoring laws and facts to support a position that this editorial board has taken - irrelevance.
14
Living in Tucson, Arizona, we are as informed on immigration issues as Judge Hanen appears to be. We see hardworking immigrants trying to build a better life for their kids. We see enrichment of our society. We see a reality that America wrenched the Southwest lands from Mexico but Hispanic citizens of our nation nonetheless dream our dream. We see justice and fairness in President Obama's immigration policy. We see bigotry and bankrupt ideology in Judge Hanes's injunction.
30
There is nothing "fair" about not enforcing the Immigration and Naturalization Act. That is what DHS is funded to do. Illegal aliens are not welcome here; they are trespassers who don't respect the rule of law. If you need a reminder of what that means, then go try to "build a better life for your kids" illegally in Mexico, and I guarantee their president won't try to twist their laws to help you.
3
...and the rest of us see laws being violated--and a president who swore an oath to enforce them---but will not.
Liberals forget: Obama said on at least 22 occasions that he did not have the authority to unilaterally change immigration law. At one time, Obama agreed with this judge. Perhaps back then, Obama was racist too.
Liberals forget: Obama said on at least 22 occasions that he did not have the authority to unilaterally change immigration law. At one time, Obama agreed with this judge. Perhaps back then, Obama was racist too.
2
Thank you Ozymandias. Most American have so little knowledge of colonization (they don't even know that we live in a postcolonial nation) that they whole heartedly accept and still believe in the 19th century narrative of Manifest Destiny. They have a "right" to this land no matter where or who it came from--God gifted it to them. The ignorance, inhumanity, and failure of so many Americans to recognize they are also descendent of immigrants- many of whom bribed their way in the early 20th century- is frightening. Fox news wins again.
Its only improper "judicial activism" when a "liberal judge" strikes down a law that the Republicans like. When a conservative judge strikes down or enjoins a law that Republicans don't like, its just exercising appropriate judicial review and applying the plain meaning of the Constitution. But what's really interesting is how much more often those so-called conservative judges do it than the progressive judges.
8
By George, I think you've got it!
The federal government has made laws regarding immigration but if you ignore those laws the federal government (The President) has declared that there are no consequences.
All branches (congress, president, courts) are supposed to represent the citizens of the USA but in this case the president chooses to give special consideration to those people who have broken federal law. The president isn't very good at logic, is he?
All branches (congress, president, courts) are supposed to represent the citizens of the USA but in this case the president chooses to give special consideration to those people who have broken federal law. The president isn't very good at logic, is he?
10
Why not do a little reading to educate yourself before posting? Then you'd know that this Administration has been has been much more aggressive than the previous one about immigration enforcement. And then you'd not post silly nonsense. Or nasty nonsense.
1
I have read that deportations have been very high under the current administration. It isn't silly nonsense to expect the president to continue to uphold the laws that he is sworn to enforce. I don't deny that most immigrants, both legal and illegal, make a contribution. I also believe that our congress is supposed to make the laws and that the president is supposed to execute those laws. When there is a problem with illegal immigration the congress should be making new laws to mitigate the problem. There is nothing silly or nasty about expecting our elected officials to respect and uphold the law.
OK, so the Times editorial board doesn't like the judge's action and that an important policy has been delayed. The editorial acknowledges that the executive branch has discretion in prioritizing enforcement. But this editorial doesn't even attempt to address the legal issues of the case. Can a president extensively modify existing immigration law that was passed by Congress?
10
No matter the pretense, this is yet another manifestation of the disease of racism that infects the United States of America. This ongoing plague is the real exceptionalism that runs the show. The jingoists proclaim the greatness of the USA every twenty seconds. No country can be great, or even decent, where racism is the norm. Nearly every social ill in the US is rooted in racism, and americans almost always look the other way. Shameful.
8
I don't think it has anything to do with racism.You people have to stop playing that card. These people are here illegally. What part of that don't you understand? They need to get the hell out. Why should our tax monies go for their education and medical benefits. Our money should go to our citizens. Let all these people go back where they came from.
7
Before you go throwing around the "racism" charge, perhaps a history lesson would be in order. On 22 occasions Obama said he did not have the power to unilaterally change immigration law. During those 6 years, was Obama a racist?
People who oppose Obama and his policies are not necessarily racist. Many of you Liberals are enthralled with the wrong "ism". We don't object to Obama's policies out of racism--but on account of "social-ism". But I suspect when Conservatives marshall our forces against Hillary, we'll all be "sex-ists". And so will our wives be.
People who oppose Obama and his policies are not necessarily racist. Many of you Liberals are enthralled with the wrong "ism". We don't object to Obama's policies out of racism--but on account of "social-ism". But I suspect when Conservatives marshall our forces against Hillary, we'll all be "sex-ists". And so will our wives be.
4
The river is arising. With failed states swathed across South and Central America the migration influx is set to increase. People are moving north in desperation. How about we control our borders first then deal with large numbers of undocumented people. Then even the Mexicans will think about regulating their border to the south.
9
Even if the courts rule in favor of Judge Hanen, the US still only has enough money and staff to deport 5% of the illegal immigrants. Thus in the end nothing changes - the President still has to be pragmatic and focus our resources on deporting criminals first - except for the fact that any taxes that might have been gained by giving these illegal immigrants legal work status will have been lost. Thus in the end Judge Hanen's decision doesn't add up to being a very useful solution to a big problem, 11 million illegal immigrants living and working and raising their families in the shadows of our society.
4
Excellent news. If only the Obama administration and the New York Times would put as much effort into looking after the interests of American rather than illegal aliens. The judge ruled correctly, and hopefully this will be locked up in court battles until a new POTUS is elected--one who will actually look after the welfare of American citizens rather than lawbreakers. Sure the time's editors are in shock and fear that this could interrupt their ability to get cheap labor for their Hamptons summer getaways. Tough.
24
Dude, I live in a city that has a large number of immigrants, such as 'Latinos' and Asians. And they add to my city's economy by not working at some mansion on the 'shore'. Hanna's decision, Dude, was an act of racist Cowardice, pure and simple. Dude, this judge was Rude.
Come on. So Republican governors seek out a court that may find favorably on their behalf. As if the Democrats don't do that? Please. Stop the biased reporting. For all you know, the judge is a Southern Democrat. The Times and the Administration are always apoplectic when the Emperor does not get his way because others assert their constitutional rights.
10
This is an editorial, by its very nature it is suppose to express an opinion.
I don't see how one can consider this a national crisis when doing nothing (adults are simply here illegally for their whole lives while their native born children are citizens) can solve the problem over time.
1
For all their bluster, liberals know deep down that the President has exceeded any reasonable bounds. Imagine a Republican President using such "discretionary" authority on a host of EPA laws AND saying he was creating new laws - the left would scream about an imperial president and the constitution being torn asunder. At the end of the day the democrats voted for a law they never read with a provision meant to coerce states into creating exchanges. They are being hung by a rope of their own creation.
16
The Times has no shame for the hypocrisy practiced by O. For six years O told us he did not have the authority to do what he did. Then, suddenly he has. Best we wait for a 'merits' case to go to the Supreme Court, not just the procedural suit that is the subject of the Texas judge's ruling. The recent discovery that each of the people that O puts in the program will be entitled to three years worth of Earned Income Tax credits, estimated by the CBO at about $25 Billion should be a wake up call. Lastly, these people who actually come into the program will in effect pay no fees to get into the program, for each will be entitled to a waiver by filing the standard form for such in current immigration law. We are being 'had' and stupid is what we are.
16
Let us be clear. The 'marginal cost' of issuing a driver's license to an additional person is considerably less then the fee.
In Texas there is no income tax, so schools are paid for with a combination of property taxes and sales taxes. Both taxes are paid by everyone who rents housing or buys things. Which includes undocumented immigrants.
I bought a home in Katy Texas in 2006 and lived there for seven years. I have intimate knowledge that American citizens in Texas reap immense economic benefit from the presence of 'illegals'. From the price of homes and contract services to the cost of dinner out Or a hotel room.
In fact the past and current governor of Texas would have a lot less Texas prosperity to brag about and bring in business with if all the hard working undocumented workers were forced out. President Obama is doing Texas a favor.
In Texas there is no income tax, so schools are paid for with a combination of property taxes and sales taxes. Both taxes are paid by everyone who rents housing or buys things. Which includes undocumented immigrants.
I bought a home in Katy Texas in 2006 and lived there for seven years. I have intimate knowledge that American citizens in Texas reap immense economic benefit from the presence of 'illegals'. From the price of homes and contract services to the cost of dinner out Or a hotel room.
In fact the past and current governor of Texas would have a lot less Texas prosperity to brag about and bring in business with if all the hard working undocumented workers were forced out. President Obama is doing Texas a favor.
276
" .. I have intimate knowledge that American citizens in Texas reap immense economic benefit from the presence of 'illegals'.
Hey, tell that my Uncle Jim. A good man who lost his carpentry business when "undocumented" flooded his Middle America college town and started getting paid in cash, no taxes for all the services they are using. He's now working nights at Walmart, barely hanging on.
Some "benefit." Ridiculous, insulting, and destroying USA rule of law.
Hey, tell that my Uncle Jim. A good man who lost his carpentry business when "undocumented" flooded his Middle America college town and started getting paid in cash, no taxes for all the services they are using. He's now working nights at Walmart, barely hanging on.
Some "benefit." Ridiculous, insulting, and destroying USA rule of law.
4
this is not about economics, immigrants are in fact a burden to the economy as most are uneducated and hold low wage jobs and need welfare to survive, but this is about upholding the law. So please save your straw man arguments for another day
2
In other words, inexpensive housing, restaurant dining and hotel stays in Texas are all made possible by importing cheap, undocumented labor.
Sounds a lot like the case for slavery 2 centuries ago!
Sounds a lot like the case for slavery 2 centuries ago!
1
What a dishonest editorial: The President is the Executive. His job is to execute the laws as defined by Congress. It is proper to block him from implementing whims he has that go beyond the laws set by Congress.
18
I'm republican and I'm for legal and regulated immigration. Republicans are not opposed to immigration we are opposed to illegal immigration. Legal immigration gives our country a fresh reinvigorated shot of prosperity. Making someone legal after a crime was committed no matter what the excuse is or was is no way to start your stay in our country, the horse has left the barn what good is it to shut the barn door? The proper thing to do is to go back to the country of origin and apply for a work visa or citizenship in our country, then we can do the proper background checks and decide if they are worthy to enter our country. This is a fair method for our country which is the primary concern and then the immigrant.
15
It would appear that the Judge quoted extensively from President Obama's own words, to the effect that the President had concluded previously that the President did not have the power to do what is the subject matter of this application.
But, as any rational person would realize, quoting the words of a fool as a justification for a decision is perhaps foolish, at a minimum ironic.
But, as any rational person would realize, quoting the words of a fool as a justification for a decision is perhaps foolish, at a minimum ironic.
6
Strange that you have to emphasize that this is a "Texas judge" who offers this decision. The New York Times and its editorial Board are safely tucked away nearly 2,000 miles away from the US/Mexico border. The terrific problems that the influx of illegal aliens presents to the border states simply does not register on the Times. Decisions rendered by Federal judges in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc, are applicable to the whole of the US of A, and are not to be rendered unaccaptable because they are "New York Judges". Please, try to put yourselves in the position of the border states of your own country, and come u p with some practical, reasonable and acceptable positions. Is this to much to ask?
24
Andy Hanen is a fine lawyer, an excellent judge and a good human being. He was raised in an academic family...his parents were college professors...and he got a sound liberal arts education at a small college in Ohio. The Times writers betray their ignorance when they infer he is a Bible-quoting, gun-toting Texas hayseed. But as we know, "diversity" is good in the Times' lexicon only if it applies to racial, gender and similar items....not to ideas.
8
Practical, reasonable and acceptable positions is what the Obama administration has expected for years from the Republicans, to no avail. Oh, and by the way: there are more than half a million undocumented immigrants safely tucked away in New York City.
2
Half of the residents of NYC are immigrants or children of immigrants. If you look at the grandchildren, the percent is even higher. So don't pretend that NYC doesn't know about immigration. We know immigrants well, their energy, their dreams, their hard work, and we welcome them as they enrich our lives. And remember that the city of Brownsville Texas wrote in favor of President Obama's plan.
America should never have second class citizens, and the Obama plan would strike a blow at that. And lest anyone think illegals aren't second class citizens, bear in mind that they have all the obligations of other citizenship but none of the rights. In Texas, of course, they ;oke this kind of arrangement just fine.
1
They are not second class citizens, by definition they are not citizens at all. As to having all the obligations of citizenship, how many of them file Federal tax returns? How many of them serve on juries?
7
Why should they have rights? They are here illegally. They broke our laws to get here. Now we should reward them? They are not second class citizens. They're not citizens at all. They need to go back home.
8
Illegal aliens are not second-class citizens. They are not citizens. Period.
7
I would remind the editors that Congress is coequal branch of government.
The president, unlike a king, does not have the power to summon or dismiss the legislature just because it isn't adhering to his timeframe. His good intentions are no substitute for the rule of law.
Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
The president, unlike a king, does not have the power to summon or dismiss the legislature just because it isn't adhering to his timeframe. His good intentions are no substitute for the rule of law.
Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
22
First, given this judge's vociferous and often declared opposition and, therefore, lack of impartiality, he should not be allowed to judge this case.
Second, it is not up to him to decide whether a given action does or not produce a "massive change". Third, the fact that a federal government decision causes expenditures by the states is something that has been talked about for years, for example, in the area of education. States have complained about the federal government imposing mandates without funding them.
This has not prevented the federal government from demanding their implementation. I wonder how many times this judge's decisions have been overturned.
Second, it is not up to him to decide whether a given action does or not produce a "massive change". Third, the fact that a federal government decision causes expenditures by the states is something that has been talked about for years, for example, in the area of education. States have complained about the federal government imposing mandates without funding them.
This has not prevented the federal government from demanding their implementation. I wonder how many times this judge's decisions have been overturned.
13
As to your first point, I wonder if you would say the same thing about a judge who had expressed great sympathy for the illegal immigrants?
As to your second, I agree - the only thing a Federal judge should rule on is whether an action is in accord with laws passed by the Congress and the U.S Constitution.
As to your third, perhaps this is the time that courts will take up the issue of unfunded mandates. It is about time, if so.
As to your second, I agree - the only thing a Federal judge should rule on is whether an action is in accord with laws passed by the Congress and the U.S Constitution.
As to your third, perhaps this is the time that courts will take up the issue of unfunded mandates. It is about time, if so.
3
Immigration; illegal or otherwise is a fact of life. The President -- after Congress consistently dawdled, stalled, and obstructed any positive effort to deal with this reality -- took ownership of this issue and steps to establish an informed and coherent policy. For the states fighting to derail his leadership now -- what are they proposing as answers? Have they truly assessed the economics of what undocumented workers bring to the table and the net gain if they were legalized?
15
This clown and I guess you too ann need to stsrt your education with a couple school house rocks. You and better yet SHE when see CONGRESS is in charge of the process all obrotion is required to put her X on it or veto. Nothing else. She need to learn how the keep her mouth shut because every time she opens it she comes across as more STUPID.
You're right, immigration is a fact of life. Congress has dealt with the issue by passing the existing laws on the subject; what you are complaining about is that they will not change these laws to suit what you think they should be.
The states fighting the issue have a proposed solution - enforce the laws on the books until they are changed by Congress.
The states fighting the issue have a proposed solution - enforce the laws on the books until they are changed by Congress.
4
Mikecody, there is a sizable cost to deporting everyone who is here undocumented. Is everyone who is in favor of sending these people back to their home country aware of that cost, which tax payers will bear? The President, knowing that the price tag exceeds the funds, has set priorities with his executive order, to deport the most dangerous and least productive members of immigrants first. He is still enforcing the law, but is setting reasonable priorities for doing so.
1
Here in Europe many countries are dealing with welfare tourism from those moving from poor eastern European countries to the country with the best benefits (UK, Germany, France et al) and applying on entry. This is not the case with most of the immigrants under discussion in the USA. Most are working hard at jobs that would otherwise go unfilled – even by the local unemployed. As someone mentioned, many came only for the season to find that reentry was no longer possible - so they stayed. These people are not moochers – they work extremely hard and deserve respect – and deserve to stay.
32
Ross:
Once these workers are legalized, they will quickly advance -- ex., move from the back of the restaurant to the front. Then their jobs won't be the lowest rung. They will be competing with Americans.
To claim that they are not competing with Americans in a very tight jobs' market is simply a false claim.
Once these workers are legalized, they will quickly advance -- ex., move from the back of the restaurant to the front. Then their jobs won't be the lowest rung. They will be competing with Americans.
To claim that they are not competing with Americans in a very tight jobs' market is simply a false claim.
5
Ross, have you taken a look at the unemployment rate in France, Portugal, Spain, etc., lately? Also there is one HUGE difference, those people are legal immigrants because of the European Union membership. You are also neglecting to mention that many of those people immigrate West because of the welfare benefits which are non-existent in their countries.
3
You are correct that the overwhelming majority of immigrants are in the US to work and build a better life. However the "benefit tourism" to which you refer in Europe is a largely a myth fed by xenophobic media like the Daily Mail and opportunistic jokers like UKIP. The immigrants in France and the UK are net contributors to their respective economies, and their social security and national health systems. If (!) anyone is gaming the benefits system, it's the indigenous poor.
Notice all the references to those who think letting those who have been here for a period of time, those who were brought here as small children those who have contributed to the economic growth of the country by doing the low wage jobs that immigrants have traditionally done, should be given the opportunity to get work permits, get college degrees, as being some sort of "Liberal" agenda.
the use of "Liberal is an argumentum ad hominum, it has one purpose to appeal to prejudice, and its use is endemic among conservatives. It is an attempt to brand those that believe in a just and compassionate society, who are willing to forgive the small transgression of crossing some artificial border to escape poverty and oppression, just as one of my ancestors did when he came from Prussia in the 1850s; are castigated as "Liberals" as though that is supposed to explain what is wrong with our beliefs n treating all these people with kindness and decency.
The conservative mind treats Liberal as an epithet. There is a group of us that meets almost every Friday as Cal State University Sacramento in a discussion session. Everyone there has a degree, and most have a graduate degree, only about three of us are conservatives. I wonder why such a high percentage of educated people are Liberals? Did someone neglect to educate us properly, was it all those Liberal professors, or did it have something to do with learning about society?
the use of "Liberal is an argumentum ad hominum, it has one purpose to appeal to prejudice, and its use is endemic among conservatives. It is an attempt to brand those that believe in a just and compassionate society, who are willing to forgive the small transgression of crossing some artificial border to escape poverty and oppression, just as one of my ancestors did when he came from Prussia in the 1850s; are castigated as "Liberals" as though that is supposed to explain what is wrong with our beliefs n treating all these people with kindness and decency.
The conservative mind treats Liberal as an epithet. There is a group of us that meets almost every Friday as Cal State University Sacramento in a discussion session. Everyone there has a degree, and most have a graduate degree, only about three of us are conservatives. I wonder why such a high percentage of educated people are Liberals? Did someone neglect to educate us properly, was it all those Liberal professors, or did it have something to do with learning about society?
127
Labels like "liberals" and "conservatives" are lazy shortcuts for those who cannot intelligently express, in detail, their opinions. Time to be substantive, not meaningless.
3
I don't want to dispute the content of your post, but I want to say that your last paragraph is biased (omitted variable and/or selection). You mention that you meet with a group and all but three are liberals, and you make the connection Liberal -> Educated, or Conservative -> Uneducated. However, 1. you have failed to take account for the location: most people in California are liberals, as shown by voting records. Thus, it is no surprise that most educated people in your group are liberals. 2. Your group is not a random sample, it's self-selected. How do we know there aren't a whole bunch of educated conservatives running around who would just rather not hang out with you? Either way, you have a biased sample, rendering your conclusions meaningless.
My point is that if you want to criticize a political group for being uneducated, you better not make amateur mistakes, or else any educated conservative will take you apart. Do better science!
My point is that if you want to criticize a political group for being uneducated, you better not make amateur mistakes, or else any educated conservative will take you apart. Do better science!
4
"The conservative mind treats Liberal as an epithet"
And the liberal mind treats conservative as an epithet - so what. that is what comes of labeling people on a binary scale and has no bearing on any particular issue.
And the liberal mind treats conservative as an epithet - so what. that is what comes of labeling people on a binary scale and has no bearing on any particular issue.
5
26 states bring suit against the executive branch and a judge agrees. This is what you call an "assault"? More, like the workings of a democracy.
118
Amen Peter. It is an assault only because it does not go along with his ideology.
3
indeed
1
26 republican states where democracy is bought and sold like...people!
2
The president may be violating the with his executive amnesty. Lets see what the courts think not what the NYT editorial board has decided it wants to happen. Despite what you may think from NYC, many Americans are opposed to what they perceive as over reaching by the president.of course if the judge had denied relief, you would have said it was a brilliant and well thought out ruling.
85
@Bill: And, of course, if the President had "over-reached" by handing every undocumented alien a one-way plane ticket back to their nation of birth you would have it was a brilliant and thought out ruling and applied for one of the produce-picking jobs that would suddenly go unfilled.
48
or, rather "you would have SAID it was a brilliant..."
9
I think we will all wait. Thanks.
Given that this judge had spoken out publicly against President Obama's immigration policies, shouldn't the judge have recused himself?
381
Have you democrats forgotten Judge Walker, the gay Judge who overturned the California passing of Proposition 8? That's okay, we conservatives haven't.
3
Read the opinion.
2
Nope!
2
"In a decision late Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville, ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states that had challenged Mr. Obama’s immigration actions. The judge said that the administration’s programs would impose major burdens on states, unleashing illegal immigration and straining state budgets, and that the administration had not followed required procedures for changing federal rules.
This judge's statement are intemperant. It is his personal opinion, and is devoid of facts.
A great many of these immigrants came to work in agriculture and used to go back after the harvests. Then the crackdown on them, and they did not go back because they cold not return after that.
But the majority of the anti immigrant crowd are only concerned with tose from south of the border. There are also a great many Asians, and the Irish are a large portion also.
How many of those poor out of work Americans do yo see applying for jobs as dishwashers, and gardeners?
This judge's statement are intemperant. It is his personal opinion, and is devoid of facts.
A great many of these immigrants came to work in agriculture and used to go back after the harvests. Then the crackdown on them, and they did not go back because they cold not return after that.
But the majority of the anti immigrant crowd are only concerned with tose from south of the border. There are also a great many Asians, and the Irish are a large portion also.
How many of those poor out of work Americans do yo see applying for jobs as dishwashers, and gardeners?
131
I do wonder how many of the "send them back crowd" benefit not only from lower food costs but also home repair & construction, day care, elderly assistance, lawn and garden care, and so on. I know of people who proudly brag about the superb craftsmanship of illegals who have excavated and built their swimming pools for much less than 1/10'th of what it would cost me. And these were people who could easily afford to pay several times what it would cost me. But alas so many people seem to care only about themselves. And we often say it's the youth. But it's not principally tbe youth. It the so-called older, middle aged. Another sad state in our country once the envy of the world.
1
Because the cheap undocumented labor and flood of uneducated fills these jobs, wages are suppressed. Americans accept tough jobs in oilfield, construction, roadwork, etc because the pay is good. If the cheap labor was not available, the "undesirable" jobs would rise in pay and become more desirable. U guys would rather keep US minorities on welfare.
6
David, I am devoted deeply to issues of immigration and resolving the status of long settled immigrants in this country that add so much to our economy and culture. I simply do not want the Executive Branch of government to run amok and witness on my watch the healthiest democracy in the world slide into the undue influence of any Executive whether Pres. Obama or others. Unfortunately , sacrificing the Legislative process and civil discourse, and truth have become fashionable. This to seek readdress of a number of injustices that any number of interest groups would consider well past due for LEGAL as in "rule of law" correction. The US Constitution still matters. The truth still matters. Pres Obama needs to honor his office.
5
"protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation"
In other words, the president is working to protect illegal immigrants from our laws. Sounds like he's got it backwards. His job is to enforce those laws.
In other words, the president is working to protect illegal immigrants from our laws. Sounds like he's got it backwards. His job is to enforce those laws.
172
How about you quoting the particular law you think the president is supposed to enforce. And by the way, where in the Constitution does it say, the president's job is to enforce the law, whatever it is?
Why isn't the president enforcing the speeding laws, the child abuse laws, and other that are broken every day? You pick one law, which you do not even understand, and want that particular one enforced by him. You wouldn't have and agenda would you? It wouldn't have anything to to with dislike for certain ethnic groups would it?
Why isn't the president enforcing the speeding laws, the child abuse laws, and other that are broken every day? You pick one law, which you do not even understand, and want that particular one enforced by him. You wouldn't have and agenda would you? It wouldn't have anything to to with dislike for certain ethnic groups would it?
207
David Underwood:
The president has systematically prevented ICE from immigration enforcement. The equivalent would be to prevent the DEA from enforcing drug laws and protecting offenders from prosecution.
That is not the president's job.
The president has systematically prevented ICE from immigration enforcement. The equivalent would be to prevent the DEA from enforcing drug laws and protecting offenders from prosecution.
That is not the president's job.
81
The president is not stopping ICE from enforce immigration laws. They are charged with arresting and deporting gang members, felons, and coyotes, among others, just not those harvesting broccoli, oranges, cucumbers, strawberries, plucking chickens, or gardening.
Jesus is my gardener, as far as I know, he is a citizen, but I do not care, he does a good job at a reasonable rate, that is what counts with me, and I have been a union member most of my working life, in skilled trades.
Your opinion of what the president is doing is like a conspiracy theory, it has just enough of veracity to be plausible to those who want to undercut Mr. Obama by any means possible. It has no substance of what is right or wrong, it is an appeal to prejudice.
Jesus is my gardener, as far as I know, he is a citizen, but I do not care, he does a good job at a reasonable rate, that is what counts with me, and I have been a union member most of my working life, in skilled trades.
Your opinion of what the president is doing is like a conspiracy theory, it has just enough of veracity to be plausible to those who want to undercut Mr. Obama by any means possible. It has no substance of what is right or wrong, it is an appeal to prejudice.
70
Each time an executive action or some other unfunded policy implemented, resources are diverted away from the routine activities of USCIS staff. As a result, processing of the applications of lawful immigrants are delayed. I applied for a green card for my brother's family 8 years ago. The wait time for processing the application at that time was just under twelve years. In the past few years that schedule has slipped as a result of earlier processing of papers for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals via executive action of 2012. Now it may be delayed further. It appears now that my nephew will be too old (above 21) to qualify for sponsorship. I do not mind legalizing the status of illegal minors, but not at the expense of the interests of legal immigrants. The Liberals are utterly insincere about the interests of immigrants, but very sincere of currying favor for the Hispanic voters.
98
Oh yeah, it the Liberals that are at the core of the problem, currying favor for the Hispanic votes. The Liberals do not need the favor of the Hispanic vote, the Hispanics are smart enough to understand just what despicable little people those anti GOP voters are.
How interesting that you single out the Hispanics, why only them? Most of the Hispanics I know already support the Democrats, and it has nothing to do with immigration, most of them are Californios, their families were here in the 1700s.
How interesting that you single out the Hispanics, why only them? Most of the Hispanics I know already support the Democrats, and it has nothing to do with immigration, most of them are Californios, their families were here in the 1700s.
93
USCIS is funded by the fees applicants and petitioners pay, as a result the executive action is not unfunded. You should know this if you paid the fees to sponsor a family member. Additionally, the agency in the process of hiring people to handle the influx of applications from those who apply as a result of the executive order. DACA hasn't been around that long and the number of applications doesn't appear to be anywhere near what was expected, so you cannot attribute the delay to that program. By the way, has it occurred to you that the reason you can sponsor anyone might just be due to "liberals" working for your rights? Be careful what you wish for when you vote for a conservative.
4
" Most of the Hispanics I know already support the Democrats, and it has nothing to do with immigration, most of them are Californios, their families were here in the 1700s."
And a very successful exercise in pushing the indigenous people aside.
And a very successful exercise in pushing the indigenous people aside.
1
"However the appellate courts come down on the case, Mr. Obama is finding himself once again dealing with a familiar sort of Republican intransigence. With his humane and realistic immigration policy, he is attempting to tackle a huge and long-running national problem: what to do with more than 11 million undocumented people who are living, working and raising families here, when the government cannot possibly apprehend or deport all of them. To the contrary, bringing some of these people out of the shadows of illegality would be an economic boon, as noted by the 12 states and more than 30 cities around the country (including Brownsville, Tex.) that are defending Mr. Obama’s actions."
Nothing, nothing, nothing, that the current President does, will please the Republican party, the party of no. As with everything else the President does or proposes the GOP says no. What can they do, what can they propose? Nothing. This do-nothing party exists for one reason only, to attempt to thwart in every way possible every single thing that the current President has done, whether it be health care, or immigration reform.
Nothing, nothing, nothing, that the current President does, will please the Republican party, the party of no. As with everything else the President does or proposes the GOP says no. What can they do, what can they propose? Nothing. This do-nothing party exists for one reason only, to attempt to thwart in every way possible every single thing that the current President has done, whether it be health care, or immigration reform.
532
Nothing, nothing, nothing? This is hardly "nothing."
Just as republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act was based on the anger of tens of millions of their constituents over a major disruption to their health insurance, opposition to the president's executive actions on immigration is also based on their constituents' disagreement with Obama's granting legal rights to illegal immigrants.
These are significant differences of opinion with the president. They are, in fact, something.
Just as republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act was based on the anger of tens of millions of their constituents over a major disruption to their health insurance, opposition to the president's executive actions on immigration is also based on their constituents' disagreement with Obama's granting legal rights to illegal immigrants.
These are significant differences of opinion with the president. They are, in fact, something.
38
Bingo! I agree with your observations. And might add, in my view, that the GOP position is similar to their position on the Affordable Health Care. They complain, SAY they have a better idea, but then fall silent... Nothing is offered, except the same old rusty words that "It's the President's fault." Have you notice the Do Nothing Congress, now is pointing a finger at Dems in the Senate accusing THEM of Doing Nothing? It seems the GOP doesn't have many "original creative thinkers!"
8
It's not the President's job to unilaterally determine that America's immigration laws require "reform". The only problem with the immigration laws as they exist is that Emperor Obama refuses to enforce them, because they have a disparate impact on his party's future constituents.
8
The GOP and their hand picked judges like Hanen, who could easily moonlight as a Fox News anchor, do not want solutions to the immigration issue.
It is far too potent an issue to motivate their nativist base, especially in small town America being overtaken by ambitious and entrepreneurial immigrants, legal and otherwise, while too many of the native population sink into social dysfunction.
The Obama Administration has been far more aggressive than the W Bush Admin about immigration enforcement, including employer audits and criminal and border deportations. While skyrocketing during the Bush Admin, illegal immigration flattened during the Obama years. In fact, the reason for so much violence in Central America has everything to do with US criminal deportation.
Judge Hanen will be over-ruled, the executive actions will go forward and the GOP will have their red meat issue for 2016.
The only question is whether Hispanics in particular will continue their low voting record or get engaged in 2016 and determine the outcome of both Senate and Presidential races.
It is far too potent an issue to motivate their nativist base, especially in small town America being overtaken by ambitious and entrepreneurial immigrants, legal and otherwise, while too many of the native population sink into social dysfunction.
The Obama Administration has been far more aggressive than the W Bush Admin about immigration enforcement, including employer audits and criminal and border deportations. While skyrocketing during the Bush Admin, illegal immigration flattened during the Obama years. In fact, the reason for so much violence in Central America has everything to do with US criminal deportation.
Judge Hanen will be over-ruled, the executive actions will go forward and the GOP will have their red meat issue for 2016.
The only question is whether Hispanics in particular will continue their low voting record or get engaged in 2016 and determine the outcome of both Senate and Presidential races.
388
C'mon, lookahead........please explain if you are talking about "immigration" or "illegal immigration". There is a GREAT difference - one is "legal" and one is not.
9
Sorry, the Obama administration has jiggered the numbers to look tough on immigration enforcement. They now include invaders stopped and deported immediately- individuals that were never previously included in the deportation count.
6
Look Ahead,
So the only "Good Judge" is one who supports your viewpoint? I would agree with you that this will be overturned on appeal but that won't be the end of it. Likely it will end up in the Supreme Court in an election year.
Are you saying that you are against deporting criminal aliens after they serve their sentences?
Are you also saying that "small town America" has no rights under our law? By the way there is an alternate explanation as many of our "small towns" are comprised of legal immigrants and their decendents. Perhaps they are upset by the fact that many of those who break our laws to come here continue to break our laws after they are here?
So the only "Good Judge" is one who supports your viewpoint? I would agree with you that this will be overturned on appeal but that won't be the end of it. Likely it will end up in the Supreme Court in an election year.
Are you saying that you are against deporting criminal aliens after they serve their sentences?
Are you also saying that "small town America" has no rights under our law? By the way there is an alternate explanation as many of our "small towns" are comprised of legal immigrants and their decendents. Perhaps they are upset by the fact that many of those who break our laws to come here continue to break our laws after they are here?
9
It is the height of hypocrisy to pretend that what is being offered is a 3-year reprieve from deportation. In actuality, what is being offered is a de facto green card. Besides a work permit, a Social Security number. Access to state benefits currently available to only those legally entitled to be here. Benefits that will be paid for almost entirely by the states.
Even liberal California is concerned about how it is going to cover those costs.
This is not about focusing on certain groups to deport and providing temporary relief to others. It is about changing the status of 5 million people here illegally, presumably on a permanent basis.
Even liberal California is concerned about how it is going to cover those costs.
This is not about focusing on certain groups to deport and providing temporary relief to others. It is about changing the status of 5 million people here illegally, presumably on a permanent basis.
296
California is trying to find a way to offer full Medi-Cal benefits under the authority of Obama's Executive Order. Meanwhile, thousands of people wait patiently - for years - for the right to enter the country legally, and it is they who are penalized for following our country's rules.
134
Reply to Sioban:
The "added burden" argument has been debunked. Almost all economists have concluded that bringing illegal immigrants into the legal world contribute far more than they cost.
But this kind of false narrative persists in spite of the facts.
The "added burden" argument has been debunked. Almost all economists have concluded that bringing illegal immigrants into the legal world contribute far more than they cost.
But this kind of false narrative persists in spite of the facts.
355
Look Ahead:
That conclusion is based on the assumption that they do not qualify for benefits.
That conclusion is based on the assumption that they do not qualify for benefits.
32
What did surprise me, though, were the reactions from a thousand readers. While I did not count the letters to categorize them, I found many thoughtful letters from liberals . . . most of whom attacked the editorial on the basis of law or of the president's overreach. Of course there were many shrill letters that reflected the NYT's premise and hysteria.
So I guess I'll continue to subscribe and look for the day when this newspaper is able to step back and look at itself.